Magic Items under CBM

[Mardagg]

Since i might make a Magic Item mod sooner or later, I want to hear people`s opinions/ideas about the current situation using CBM 1.6.
I think QM generally did a great job in balancing and polishing the items,but there is still room for improvement imo.
My plan is to not only improve balance but also make many items more thematic as well as adding some(not much) new items here and there.

I would like to start with the general situation concerning 1-handed and 2-handed melee items and some uniques.
I think this is where still can be done quite alot,thematically as well as for balancing reasons.

For a start,i think that:

-Fire and Frost Brands are too strong for the price
-many 2 handed items are extremely underpowered(e.g. Wraith Sword) and could need more thematic polishing(e.g. Hell sword).
-some uniques still need to be evaluated differently(e.g. Black mirror) or changed(Fever Fetish should be non unique again)

So far,i got the following ideas concerning some of the above:

-Fire and frost brand should remain massable therefore increasing the price shouldnt be an option.
I would like to see them dealing less base damage.
That would still make them equally strong vs chaff like PD,but it would make especially the Armor piercing effect of the fire brand significant weaker vs SC`s/thugs.
Shadow Brand i would like to see dealing AN damage ,and generally making it stronger and more expensive.
It is meant to be a Cons 6 weapon after all ,so it is thematically appropriate to make it actually stronger than the other brands imo.

-Wraith sword is the single most underpowered item in cbm imo.
Below average damage,average stats,nerfed life drain since dom2, uses 2 hand slots, very expensive with 25 gems+cons6.
It is actually dealing less damage than many single handed weapons!
Thematically it should be a no brainer therefore to improve the damage output by a lot and the stats also quite a lot.
On top of that i would consider to make it just 15 Death gems.
Hell sword on the other hand is also slightly underpowered atm.
Here i would like to see a more extreme version,while staying at the same price.For sure some more offensive power,like Armor piercing attack or improving Att/Damage.

-Some uniques are still too expensive in the light of the many changes to other items.
Fever Fetish should be treated differently than Clams imo ,making it non-unique again,but maybe making it 1 step more expensive.Blood stone is unique,therefore a booster item is needed for Earth using a misc slot(any ideas?).

[llamabeast]

I wouldn't make Fever Fetish non-unique again. It may or may not be overpowered, but its use promotes micromanagement which is not ultimately very fun.

[Tollund]

-many 2 handed items are extremely underpowered(e.g. Wraith Sword) and could need more thematic polishing(e.g. Hell sword).

The wraith sword was 10 death gems in Dom 2, and with full lifedrain was just about the only weapon thugs tended to use other than blood thorns. With partial lifedrain, I'd probably try it at a cost of 15 gems to see if that makes it worthwhile before adding too much damage.

-some uniques still need to be evaluated differently(e.g. Black mirror) or changed(Fever Fetish should be non unique again)

Are fever fetishes cursed? Because if they aren't, then they run into the gem generating problem again. Maybe make items that cast particular fire/astral/earth spells at the beginning of a battle rather than making the gem generators non-unique.

Fever Fetish should be treated differently than Clams imo ,making it non-unique again,but maybe making it 1 step more expensive.Blood stone is unique,therefore a booster item is needed for Earth using a misc slot(any ideas?).

The only booster items available for Earth magic are the pebble skin suit and the tome of gaia (also does nature). It's not possible to add magic path boosts to new or existing items. One could also maybe reduce the path levels on some of the E5 spells so that E2 mages would only need one booster to cast them. petrify is a candidate here.

[Quitti]

My opinions:


-Fire and Frost Brands are too strong for the price
Yes. I Agree.

-many 2 handed items are extremely underpowered(e.g. Wraith Sword) and could need more thematic polishing(e.g. Hell sword).
Yes, some (especially) 2h items need to be re-evaluated price- and damagewise.

(Fever Fetish should be non unique again)
No. It's the most micro intensive gem gen in the game, and a gem gen which ultimately makes the game boring and predictable.


Blood stone is unique,therefore a booster item is needed for Earth using a misc slot(any ideas?).

Tome of Gaia to con6, increase it to e4n1 or around that. Staves of elemental mastery + robes of magi are already f4w4/e4a4/a5n5, so at least e4. Problem is that most nations that benefited from blood stones can't get e+n in national mages (MA/LA Ulm, Agarthas). One more nature booster at that high cost shouldn't be an issue, as there is already a way of getting +4 nature without too much effort if the caster has full slots. Still, it's not usually a really bad idea to have nature magic on your pretender with these nations (especially LA Ulm).

Other option would be to make troll armor con6, put the price to around e4b1-b4 or so. It has severe disadvantages though, I wouldn't suggest this.

[Sombre]

I've always thought tome of gaea should just be made into an exact copy of the blood stone in terms of reseach and path requirements. The nature boost is then just a replacement for the lost gem genning.

Bloodroot Manual or something as a name.

[kianduatha]

I've always thought tome of gaea should just be made into an exact copy of the blood stone in terms of reseach and path requirements. The nature boost is then just a replacement for the lost gem genning.

Bloodroot Manual or something as a name.

That's certainly the least disruptive option available, but on the other hand the only nations that don't go through crazy hoops to get bloodstones are the Pangaeas, LA Ulm and MA Abysia. Do we really want earth-heavy nations to keep on getting blood-4 on their pretender(or worse, setting up scout-provinces)? At least lower it to B2 or something to account for no longer having gem generation. E2B1 or E3B1 seems much more reasonable if you're not also getting infinite earth gems.

[Wrana]

I've always thought tome of gaea should just be made into an exact copy of the blood stone in terms of reseach and path requirements. The nature boost is then just a replacement for the lost gem genning.

Bloodroot Manual or something as a name.

That's certainly the least disruptive option available, but on the other hand the only nations that don't go through crazy hoops to get bloodstones are the Pangaeas, LA Ulm and MA Abysia. Do we really want earth-heavy nations to keep on getting blood-4 on their pretender(or worse, setting up scout-provinces)? At least lower it to B2 or something to account for no longer having gem generation. E2B1 or E3B1 seems much more reasonable if you're not also getting infinite earth gems.
Vanheim/Helheim is able to get them via Vanadrotts. On the other hand, these later can't use boots...
Generally, an idea is about as sound as is possible under existing mod commands, I think.
Still, I don't see these 3 items as actually disruptive - and I see them being artifacts as effectively banned for they would be just useless as unique items - especially true for the Fetish.

[Psycho]

I completely support the frost and fire brands nerf idea. That should make it's way into CBM.

[Amorphous]

Since i might make a Magic Item mod sooner or later, I want to hear people`s opinions/ideas about the current situation using CBM 1.6.
I think QM generally did a great job in balancing and polishing the items,but there is still room for improvement imo.
My plan is to not only improve balance but also make many items more thematic as well as adding some(not much) new items here and there.

I would like to start with the general situation concerning 1-handed and 2-handed melee items and some uniques.
I think this is where still can be done quite alot,thematically as well as for balancing reasons.
The first question that springs to my mind here, is whether you have thought through what kind of balance you have in mind.

Dominions is an intricate game and consequently so is trying to balance the magic items in it. Magic items do not just require a certain level of researched construction magic and a number of gems, they require a particular kind of gem. And just as the magic paths differ when it comes to summons, rituals and battle magic, so they differ in how they perform in the area of forging.

For a start,i think that:

-Fire and Frost Brands are too strong for the price
-many 2 handed items are extremely underpowered(e.g. Wraith Sword) and could need more thematic polishing(e.g. Hell sword).
-some uniques still need to be evaluated differently(e.g. Black mirror) or changed(Fever Fetish should be non unique again)

So far,i got the following ideas concerning some of the above:

-Fire and frost brand should remain massable therefore increasing the price shouldnt be an option.
I would like to see them dealing less base damage.
That would still make them equally strong vs chaff like PD,but it would make especially the Armor piercing effect of the fire brand significant weaker vs SC`s/thugs.
I do not think it a mere happenstance that it is fire and water - two paths not generally though of as very powerful in other areas - that are needed to craft these. However that may be, in comparison to the other weapons at construction 4 they do not seem that out of place.

Take the Fire Brand for example. Its damage and attack/defence are not that much better than the Sword of Sharpness at construction 0 and the area attack is the same as that of the Demon Whip at construction 2. Personally I think it a very bad idea to have the Demon Whip as is in CBM at construction 2 - it is just too early for that kind of area attack - but even if you bump it up to construction 4 the argument remains the same.

Also, I have to wonder if making the fire brand less effective against SCs and thugs this way is really a good thing. Big and strong commanders will not care much that you knock off a couple of points of inherent damage, but smaller and weaker commanders will. CBM has already made it easier to kill ordinary troops through price and path reductions of items (cfr Demon Whip), so I have a hard time seeing it as balance promoting to tip the scales even further in the direction of physically impressive commanders.

Nevertheless, if you really wish to take them down a notch, how about just bumping them up to construction 6? They will still be massable, but come sufficiently late that there will be a lot more counter measures available at a relatively cheap price.

Shadow Brand i would like to see dealing AN damage ,and generally making it stronger and more expensive.
It is meant to be a Cons 6 weapon after all ,so it is thematically appropriate to make it actually stronger than the other brands imo.
It is already a decent weapon that does what it sets out to do and death is already a powerful path, so I really do not see the need. Also, if you actually intend to lessen the power of the other brands, the difference will be huge. That seems not quite well advised.

-Wraith sword is the single most underpowered item in cbm imo.
Below average damage,average stats,nerfed life drain since dom2, uses 2 hand slots, very expensive with 25 gems+cons6.
It is actually dealing less damage than many single handed weapons!
Thematically it should be a no brainer therefore to improve the damage output by a lot and the stats also quite a lot.
On top of that i would consider to make it just 15 Death gems.
That seems rather extreme. To say the least.

Whatever the glory of lifedrain in the hallowed times of Dominions 2, it is still a very powerful effect. A weapon with lifedrain is as good as having a small amount of regeneration and a huge amount of reinvigoration. Using other equipment, this would cost you a couple of slots and at least 15-20 nature and earth gems. Giving the sword all around better stats and making it cost just 15 death gems makes it not just very powerful, but also very, very cheap.

As is, the Wraith Sword is very useful when you are not swimming in nature and earth gems but have a sizeable death economy. As such I really do not think it needs a boost.

Hell sword on the other hand is also slightly underpowered atm.
Here i would like to see a more extreme version,while staying at the same price.For sure some more offensive power,like Armor piercing attack or improving Att/Damage.
Again, lifedrain is powerful. And it goes very well with berserk.

Thinking of my earlier words about balance, look at your weapon suggestions as a whole. The primary beneficiaries of your changes are death and to a lesser extent blood. Do these paths really need the boost?

Water and fire take the hit. Do they need toning down?

[Quitti]

As is, the Wraith Sword is very useful when you are not swimming in nature and earth gems but have a sizeable death economy. As such I really do not think it needs a boost.


Any sizeable death income tends to veer towards tartarians, not somewhat useless 2h weapons that cost a ton. I could see this argument if you used athame (ie. Blood Thorn) as your example, as blood is cheap and easy to get to those nations with access to actually forge the aforementioned item in general, and it allows you to actually wield either another 1h weapon or a shield alongside it. I don't know if this problem is due tartarians being so easy to get or being so cheap. Either way, I wouldn't certainly lose out two tartarians (gemwise, counting without hammer which would bring it down to around 1½ tarts) to a 2h weapon that can be surpassed in many ways by several 1h weapons at con4 or less.

[Jarkko]

Amorphus, if you had the choice of crafting a Hero Blade, a Frostbrand+Vineshield or a Wraithsword, would you honestly even consider Wraithword? Lifedrain *is* good, no question about that, but IMO Wraithsword simply sucks donkey-poo compared with the other options available.

[Illuminated One]

Especially as the Standard of the Damned has the same cost.

[Amorphous]

Any sizeable death income tends to veer towards tartarians, not somewhat useless 2h weapons that cost a ton. I could see this argument if you used athame (ie. Blood Thorn) as your example, as blood is cheap and easy to get to those nations with access to actually forge the aforementioned item in general, and it allows you to actually wield either another 1h weapon or a shield alongside it. I don't know if this problem is due tartarians being so easy to get or being so cheap. Either way, I wouldn't certainly lose out two tartarians (gemwise, counting without hammer which would bring it down to around 1½ tarts) to a 2h weapon that can be surpassed in many ways by several 1h weapons at con4 or less.
So, because death has powerful summons available it should also have powerful magic items?

I do not agree and moreover, your comparison is rather suspect for several reasons.
Wraith Swords are available at construction 6, Tartarian Gate requires conjuration 9. There are a lot of research points in between. This is not even considering the availability of a sufficiently accomplished death mage.

The powerful Tartarians are also not quite as cheap as that. Sure, summoning one is a mere 12 death gems, but what you get is only a commander in 20% of the cases. If you were just spending death gems you would need an average of 60 gems to get a commander. Using 15 nature gems you can bring that down to 12 death gems.
That said, when you fulfil all the prerequisites, you will indeed seldom choose a Wraith Sword over a Tartarian. However, the same goes for a lot of things when you have everything researched.


Amorphus, if you had the choice of crafting a Hero Blade, a Frostbrand+Vineshield or a Wraithsword, would you honestly even consider Wraithword? Lifedrain *is* good, no question about that, but IMO Wraithsword simply sucks donkey-poo compared with the other options available.
It depends. Which is sort of my point.
Even if we assume that I have all the paths necessary to craft all the options, necessity and gem availability might make the first two choices much less efficient than a Wraith Sword.

Consider for a moment a situation where you have a big beefy guy who needs some form of regeneration and reinvigoration. Neither the Hero's Blade nor the Frostbrand+Vineshield provides that, which means that you must fork over about 20 nature gems to attain it. Furthermore, as you are big and beefy, the Hero's Blade while good is nothing special and your opponents might not be very impressed with cold damage. Some of them may be naturally immune against cold, others through magic. And you may need your nature gems for other things like diversification or GoRing.

Maybe you want to set up a Tartarian factory. If you want to GoR your Tartarians you need as many nature as death gems, so if you have a larger death than nature income, you have more death than nature gems to spend.

It is a mistake to only think of situations where everything is researched and all gems are in equal demand. I can of course only speak for myself, but it is not uncommon for me to get into mid and late game with huge difference in gem income even in the paths I have covered in full. It has certainly happened to me that I had more than double the income in my most numerous gem kind than in the two following together. And that without any gem generating global up.

[Tollund]

You'd be better off in almost any real situation to just forge a standard of the damned over a wraith sword.

[Sir_Dr_D]

There is no reason that every item needs to be equally usefull. If some items are more used then others that is fine. If a particual item on average is only used once per multi-player game, and that use is a valid tactical option at that time, the item will have served its role. We just want to make sure there isn't items that are never usefull.


I am not all that familiar with the wraith sword, but would it not be a good counter against thugs and SC's in certain situations?

[Psycho]

I do not agree and moreover, your comparison is rather suspect for several reasons.
Wraith Swords are available at construction 6, Tartarian Gate requires conjuration 9. There are a lot of research points in between. This is not even considering the availability of a sufficiently accomplished death mage.

The powerful Tartarians are also not quite as cheap as that. Sure, summoning one is a mere 12 death gems, but what you get is only a commander in 20% of the cases. If you were just spending death gems you would need an average of 60 gems to get a commander. Using 15 nature gems you can bring that down to 12 death gems.
That said, when you fulfil all the prerequisites, you will indeed seldom choose a Wraith Sword over a Tartarian. However, the same goes for a lot of things when you have everything researched.

That's not true for the simple reason that you will be saving death gems throughout the game, so that you have enough available once you reach conj 9.

[Valerius]

Following up on one of Amorphous' points, the proposed gem cost changes to the various brands have the net effect of helping SCs and harming thugs. A few more gems investment in an SC is not a big deal but thugs need to be equipped cheaply. I also don't think frost/fire brands need to have their damage nerfed. Though they are commonly seen weapons they aren't unbalancing. And again, SCs will benefit nicely since thugs will pose less of a threat to them while their own generally high strength will enable them to still do plenty of damage if they use these weapons. Of course, I doubt they'd choose a frost/fire brand since they'd have an AOE and AN (!) weapon available in the form of the boosted shadow brand. Everyone has their own opinion of balance but I prefer not to do anything to make SCs stronger and I think that's what these changes amount to.

[Amorphous]

You'd be better off in almost any real situation to just forge a standard of the damned over a wraith sword.
In most cases you are probably correct, but I can certainly think of exceptions.

You are not really doing that much damage with the standard and the defence rating is very bad. For strong commanders the sword may be a better choice. You do not get as much life leech, but you will kill your opponents much faster and they will damage you less. Also, four-armed units can combine an attack with the sword with other weapons, while the standard cannot be used in such a fashion.


That's not true for the simple reason that you will be saving death gems throughout the game, so that you have enough available once you reach conj 9.
Aside from the thing about gem-flow, this presupposes that you are at liberty to wait for effective thugs and SCs. A Tartarian a couple of years in the future really does not help when you need something now.

[Wrana]

It is a mistake to only think of situations where everything is researched and all gems are in equal demand.
Of course! And I think that's a common mistake which CBM authors often do. :(
As for Brands, etc., it was a main CBM trend for some time to make AoE items cheaper/easier to research. This also includes Boots of Behemoth at 0 Construction currently, and Evening Star at 2 Construction (don't remember current version, but it was some time ago - I used it with devastating results).
Wraith Sword is quite useful - though it's possible that Standart of the Damned is better. But on the other hand, the latter reduces bearer's combat abilities, so he can be swarmed and needs bodyguards...

[Mardagg]

Very nice discussion,keep it on guys.
I got several new/slightly altered ideas in my mind,but i will wait a bit befor posting them.

Just a few thoughts so far:

-Fire/frost brand should only nerfed for damage value,not making it more expensive.They should still be a very good choice after the nerf...say you make the fire brand from 12 damage,to 6 or 8.
Its still armor piercing,its still only 5/5 E/F gems,its still only cons 4 ,its still got ok att/def being 1-handed and its still got the main thing:Area of effect damage.
I think many people here are underestimating the Power of (a) armor piercing attack,which effectively doubles the damage vs every mid to high level opponent and (b) being 1 handed and cheap,you easiliy put on a shield for much better def/prot and more special effects/resistances.
Any 2 handed weapon therefore has to overcome the combined strength of a 1handed weapon and a shield or two 1handed weapons to be a viable choice.

-My idea for the shadow brand is to make it much better but much more expensive.AN damage is an idea,but for this to be balanced i would reduce the base damage.
I just think its thematic.I look at that sword and think it should bypass armor.Also its meant to be Cons 6 that could be a seen as a hindsight from the devs imo.

-Wraith sword and Regen/reinvig aspect is slightly flawed,since u need to hit first and you actually need to deal some damage at least for max partial life drain.
Now,if you look at the combat mechanics,a wraith sword with that pretty low At/def values has a tough time actually hitting a Shield+Sword kitted SC,not to mention its pretty hard to inflict damage with the abysmal low 9 normal damage vs say 24-30 Prot guys with shield...
I agree it should not be made that powerful again like it was in Dom2 ...but....at the moment we got it at least 2 times less effective for 2.5 times more the price compared to dom2.In addition,there are much better weapon choices in general that compete with it in DOM 3 and CBM did make some other weapons even more effective.

-really balancing the spell paths is very,very tough.
But e.g. its basically pretty easy to say nerf the frost brand just a bit,but then make the sword of swiftness slightly better if the majority is worried about Water magic after the slight nerf.No big problem there.

Basically i want to improve diversity,make more choices viable besides the like 90% standard kits of brand+shield.

-i agree with the fever fetish regarding more micro,therefore i no longer support making it non unique again.

[Sir_Dr_D]

In terms of gemgens is it possible to instead of making them unique, make them more expensive and add other abilites to them. They could raise stats such as magic resitance and protection, or auto cast some spell. The idea would be to make them expensive enough so they are only worthwhile for certain mages or SC's equipped for combat.

[Sombre]

I agree the wraith sword is pretty bad currently. 2 handed weapons need to be particularly powerful in order to make up for the fact they're two handed, or they need to be cheap so you can use them as throwaway weapons on anti-SC thugs, who you wouldn't want to give a shield or second weapon necessarily.

Wraith Sword is neither. It drains life, which is good for killing chaff and armies, but two handed weapons aren't really suited to that duty. It does reasonable damage so you can use it vs SCs and thugs, but there are a variety of other two handed and even one handed weapons that are better at that and cheaper too.

[Sombre]

In terms of gemgens is it possible to instead of making them unique, make them more expensive and add other abilites to them. They could raise stats such as magic resitance and protection, or auto cast some spell. The idea would be to make them expensive enough so they are only worthwhile for certain mages or SC's equipped for combat.

No.

[Psycho]

Maybe vine shield can be nerfed as well, since it is definitely the best choice for the shield by far. I'd put it higher in the research tree - constr 6.

[Mardagg]

Also, I have to wonder if making the fire brand less effective against SCs and thugs this way is really a good thing. Big and strong commanders will not care much that you knock off a couple of points of inherent damage, but smaller and weaker commanders will. CBM has already made it easier to kill ordinary troops through price and path reductions of items (cfr Demon Whip), so I have a hard time seeing it as balance promoting to tip the scales even further in the direction of physically impressive commanders.



I got a different opinion here.
Currently,the Brands are great vs chaff and great vs SC`s,all while being cheap.
That makes it a no-brainer almost every time for any SC or Thug to give it a Brand.Thugs with a Brand are pretty good vs chaff,too.
In turn,any SC equipped with a brand is well rounded.
By reducing the damage,generic SC`s become weaker vs specialized SC`s/Thugs,equipped for maximizing damage on just one target.
This is mainly the place where i see many 2 handed weapons in future use.
U could e.g. make the flambeu slightly better or cheaper and it would be a viable choice for anti sc purpose with its triple damage vs undeads.There are many,many possibilties here if you manage to nerf the brands so that they arent a no brainer anymore,while still being a good choice.

[Sombre]

Frost brand isn't so great vs SCs and thugs, but man it's cheap for what it does.

[Quitti]

Frost brand isn't so great vs SCs and thugs, but man it's cheap for what it does.
Indeed, 5w gems and requires just w1 mage to make.

So, because death has powerful summons available it should also have powerful magic items?
Not necessarily so. Either the items need to be toned up or the summons toned down.

Other stuff from Amorphous
The already stated Standard of the Damned is a better choice than Wraith Sword. And yes, I know con6 vs conj9 and possibly ench8 for demiliches does require more research (difference of path 6 vs path 9 on normal research is 3560 RP afaik), and you basically need both to fully utilize tartarians, both construction and conj9. Not to talk about figuring out how to heal those tartarians, and afford the GoR you'll want with it. Still, I wouldn't WASTE my gems on such a low quality item vs the gem cost currently. The pretty much same effect comes from slapping skullfaces on scouts and using the raise skeletons it provides. Probably better one actually. With the same gem cost. Besides, Wraith Sword, should it be used with current stats, would require HUGE strength most of the time to utilize, in addition to very big attack skill to quarantee hits, and preferably used with quickness (10-15 gems or water magic on the commander). And it doesn't let you use shield or another weapon. Only 2h weapons I can see use for are a) some of the ranged weapons b) Gate Cleaver c) Flambeau (or Holy Scourge in a pinch). And the last two again require quickness to utilize well enough.

Generally, for death gem income, it's simply not worth the effort to forge items with (with the exception of boosters, and few select items depending on the situation, which do not include Wraith Sword), unless you have some useful national summons, such as Lankas blood summons or other monkey people astral conjurations.

[Wrana]

Maybe vine shield can be nerfed as well, since it is definitely the best choice for the shield by far. I'd put it higher in the research tree - constr 6.

Agreed. This is the most used shield by far - unless I don't have Nature gems... :(
As for Brands - I agree with Sombre that cheapness is main attrcation of the Frost one. Same price Stick and Demon whip (CBM) have worse att/def. Shadowbrand is more costly with a risk to user, which is also true for Evening Star (but how famously the latter clears crowds! Definitely shouldn't be too cheap/easy to make). So in this group Fire brand is also the cheapest considering that it also gives FR and is AP. This second group can be used against thugs/SCs, but it still isn't optimal for it - better options are present, unless, of course, you didn't know that you would fight other thugs or are constrained in gems. So - I wouldn't say they should be nerfed in damage, but I also wouldn't say they should be placed low in the research tree as current CBM does. With Stick & (probably) Whip at 2, Frost & Fire brands at 4, Shadow & Evening Star at 6 it should be OK, I think.

[Trumanator]

Maybe vine shield can be nerfed as well, since it is definitely the best choice for the shield by far. I'd put it higher in the research tree - constr 6.

Really? I almost universally prefer the Eye Shield, since even if you run into an unexpected thug it means you have a good chance of killing it.

[Sombre]

I find eye shield, vine shield, charcoal shield, lucky coin and gleaming gold all pretty much equally useful. Which is a good thing.

qm doesn't tend to like moving research levels or path requirements around for commonly used items, because it does confuse people a fair bit. So I doubt the brands will be moved. At most I would expect a stat tweak.

[vfb]

Nerfing the brands is going to suck for raiding nations, like Eriu. But Eriu is OP anyway, right?

[thejeff]

If you dropped the weapon damage, but left the AE damage the same it wouldn't make much difference against chaff/PD, but would weaken it against thugs/elites. That shouldn't hurt the raiders too much.

[Mardagg]

If you dropped the weapon damage, but left the AE damage the same it wouldn't make much difference against chaff/PD, but would weaken it against thugs/elites. That shouldn't hurt the raiders too much.

exactly.

[Micah]

If you dropped the weapon damage, but left the AE damage the same it wouldn't make much difference against chaff/PD, but would weaken it against thugs/elites. That shouldn't hurt the raiders too much.

exactly.

No. This would hurt them plenty, as it cuts down their options against enemy thugs and SCs, the glam nations have very low strength scores on their raiders and need good, cheap weapons. This is where they ALREADY have trouble in games, raiding and killing PD isn't the issue.

[Sombre]

That seems more like an argument to boost 2H weapons as cheap anti thug equipment.

[Mardagg]

That seems more like an argument to boost 2H weapons as cheap anti thug equipment.

exactly:)

[Sir_Dr_D]

I like what is being said here. Make the brands do less base damage, and keep them tailored for chaff destroying. Make two handed weapons better against thugs.

This will add more depth as you try to guess what your opponent will be equipping their thugs with. It will become more important to have different types of thugs around, and use different thugs for different tasks.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I want to add, that I love what has been done to the midget masher in CBM. It has definate uses and weaknesses. This makes it an interesting weapon. We need to find ways to make some of the other rarely used weapons just as fun.

[Mardagg]

We need to find ways to make some of the other rarely used weapons just as fun.

Absolutely right.
We got a very nice base of thematically interesting melee items atm,but most are only of minor use or just plain useless.
I really think,that maybe changing half a dozen 2h weapons and 2-3 1h weapons would be enough already,to make for a much more interesting and fun game,all while being more balanced,too.
Later you could maybe even add 1 or 2 new items.
Thats not much work to do!

[Psycho]

Maybe vine shield can be nerfed as well, since it is definitely the best choice for the shield by far. I'd put it higher in the research tree - constr 6.

Really? I almost universally prefer the Eye Shield, since even if you run into an unexpected thug it means you have a good chance of killing it.

Definitely. Vine shield is better against chaff, better against elite units as you can't get swarmed easily and better against thugs, since eye shield requires a MR check which a thug will often pass, but if he gets tangles by vines you get a free hit, which can be enough to kill him.

It's also better than gold shield, since it doesn't have problems with bersekers and undead. And charcoal and lucky coin are rarely used - you need units that can survive being swarmed to use them. Vine shield is the goto shield.

[Mardagg]

Ive never used the vine shield vs physically strong SC`s.
There is a strength check involved IIRC,so do you still get a free hit vs very strong units or do they instantly break free?

I like to mix in the eye shield vs chaff ...only a few turns and there is generally no one left that can hit you.Also,vs stronger units/thugs u can often do some serious affliction problems with abit luck,even if you lose.

generally,Nature gems are pretty sparse in mid to late game,thats something to consider when evaluating the Vine shield
vs the Earth/fire gem shields.

Also,the parry and protection value for the vine and eye shield are much worse than from most others.

I do like the scutata a lot,btw,its pretty good at what it does AND offers Lightning protection which can be useful as it is generally more needed than fire/cold protection which u often already have natural or via brands.

[Trumanator]

Maybe vine shield can be nerfed as well, since it is definitely the best choice for the shield by far. I'd put it higher in the research tree - constr 6.

Really? I almost universally prefer the Eye Shield, since even if you run into an unexpected thug it means you have a good chance of killing it.

Definitely. Vine shield is better against chaff, better against elite units as you can't get swarmed easily and better against thugs, since eye shield requires a MR check which a thug will often pass, but if he gets tangles by vines you get a free hit, which can be enough to kill him.

It's also better than gold shield, since it doesn't have problems with bersekers and undead. And charcoal and lucky coin are rarely used - you need units that can survive being swarmed to use them. Vine shield is the goto shield.

Eye shields inflict permanent damage though. If your guy runs, or theirs gets away, you've still done major damage. As for resisting the effect, its a pretty high check to make, like 18. I blinded a 32 MR Allfather once. Its also almost as good as the vine shield against chaff.

[Frozen Lama]

I'm willing to be proven wrong here Psycho, but i've used the eye shield a lot, and the MR check is very very hard to pass. i'd say that over 98% of the times i've used it it results in a lost eye. this includes vs tartarian, arch devils, jags, seraphs, pretty much everything.

[Sir_Dr_D]

This reminds me of my most amusing Dominions blooper. I was playing Agartha and was being attacked by Man. Man's army consisted of lots of knights, and backed by lighting blasting mages. I tried to hold off the army with a a risen oracle. I equiped the oracle with the best that I could at the time, which included lighting proof armor, two shields, one of them being an eye shield, and boots of the behometh. I had the oracle cast stone skin, and then try to trample the knights.
The setup almost worked. The knights couldn't damage the oracle. My plan was to get the army to route. The problem, though, was my pretender slowly started to get fatigued. I couldn't figure out why. He was undead and shoudn't have been able to get fatigued. This caused him to route first. He was two fatigued however to actually move. As a result the army of Man didn't route like they should have. The battle got to turn 50. Since I counted as the attacker from breaing siege, I auto lost. Despite being immortal, the oracle did not come back.

It wasn't until a bit after the battle that I realized why the oracle was getting fatigued. I had cast stone skin. He was killed by his own chill aura. :doh::doh::doh::doh:

I lost that game, but at least I had the satisfaction to blind a whole army of knights using the eye shield. It was a funny sight: a clumsy size four risen oracle with two shields trying to trample an army of blind knights.

[vfb]

MR check for wielded items is vs 12, according to the debug log.

[Trumanator]

MR check for wielded items is vs 12, according to the debug log.

Is that the Eye shield specifically? Cuz its a lot more effective than a check of 12 would indicate. Even if it does turn out to be 12, the number of checks you generally get almost guarantee the enemy's eyeloss.

[Psycho]

All MR checks in the game are against base value of 12, for all items and spells. Sure you can blind a MR 32 creature, but that requires a great deal of luck. Lama, I guess you just had luck with the eye shield or maybe your opponents didn't bring enough MR to the table. But it's not something you can rely on and if the eyeloss effect doesn't work, then you brought along a near-worthless parry 5 shield. It's easy to blind a bunch of knights or jags if they can't kill you fast enough. But then it means that they probably wouldn't be able to kill you anyway.

[Psycho]

If you dropped the weapon damage, but left the AE damage the same it wouldn't make much difference against chaff/PD, but would weaken it against thugs/elites. That shouldn't hurt the raiders too much.

exactly.

No. This would hurt them plenty, as it cuts down their options against enemy thugs and SCs, the glam nations have very low strength scores on their raiders and need good, cheap weapons. This is where they ALREADY have trouble in games, raiding and killing PD isn't the issue.

Surely you don't say that glamor thug nations have troubles against SCs? That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think it's a good thing to be able to equip your cheap thugs with universal gear that is good against both chaff and SCs. Chaff killing gear should be ineffective against SCs and SC killing gear should be more expensive.

[Wrana]

I want to add, that I love what has been done to the midget masher in CBM. It has definate uses and weaknesses. This makes it an interesting weapon. We need to find ways to make some of the other rarely used weapons just as fun.

Agree!

[Wrana]

Surely you don't say that glamor thug nations have troubles against SCs? That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think it's a good thing to be able to equip your cheap thugs with universal gear that is good against both chaff and SCs. Chaff killing gear should be ineffective against SCs and SC killing gear should be more expensive.

As a matter of fact, they do. I had them as Helheim about a year ago - vs first Bane Lord, then Tartarian. Of course, it's possible that I should have brought larger numbers of thugs - but still. Raiding was quite good at the same time...

[Amorphous]

The Fire and Frost Brand are popular not just because they are cheap, but also because they fill a niche - they provide offensive crowd control while at the same time being able to deal at least decently with tougher targets.

I think that niche needs filling, but if you do not, you are going about it the wrong way. If the well-roundedness is the problem, you should remove the Fire Brand entirely; there are earth weapons that perform the AP damage and the Demon Whip that manages crowd control through area fire. And the Frost Brand could then be replaced by an item similar to the Demon Whip but utilizing cold damage.

Lowering the base damage of especially the Fire Brand will eliminate its use as all-round weapon for commanders with strength in the 10-15 range, while commanders with 20+ strength will still be able to use it as a decent all-round weapon. In short the change would just tip the balance even further in the direction of SCs.


As for making the Shadow Brand armour negating, I do not think it a good idea. There are not that many non-ranged AN weapons and the ones that do exist do not have anywhere near the stats of the Shadow Brand. If you want to keep the stats anywhere near as is - and here base damage is at best a secondary concern - I have to ask why the introduction of such a powerful weapon is warranted, and if you want to bring the stats in line with what already exists, I have to ask why you intend to double up on what is already in the game.

Whatever the answer, it still boils down to making death more powerful. And I do not see that as promoting balance.


When it comes to two-handed weapons, I find the assessment of the 'general' situation rather flawed. Most 2h weapons are ranged, boosters or speciality weapons in some other fashion (Lightning Rod, Staff of Corrosion etc). Even among the rest, there is a lot of special niche-filling going on.

Two weapons have been mentioned specifically, namely the Flambeau and the Wraith Sword.

Now, it escapes me why the Flambeau should need a boost. It is already a very, very good weapon against undead and demons. With its AP and tripple damage even a bog standard strength 10 commander does huge damage to a preferred target (69 AP), no matter how much armour is crammed onto it. It is not the best choice when not fighting demons or undead, but that would seem a good thing if variety is what you are after.

The Wraith Sword on the other hand fills a quite different niche. It is not a weapon that you drool over, but instead a weapon filling the crap-I'm-out-of-earth-and-nature-gems niche for some heavy death nations. It is not a weapon you will forge a lot of in a game, but at times you forge a couple. A construction-heavy Fomoria with a low nature and earth gem-flow may be a candidate. You are churning out one 25 strength King and several 20+ strength commanders each turn, and at least the Kings have a decent shot at getting a water pick, so you are not lacking commanders that can handle the sword.

It is certainly not ideal and it is expensive, but that is the price you pay for being a death nation. Death does not have as many weapon options as other paths.


There are some 2h weapons I have a hard time finding a use for - the Halberd of might springs to mind - but I think a lot of the others just suffer from lack of context in these discussions.

Take the two construction 0 2-handers Sword of Sharpness and Thorn Staff for example. When you have lots of mages, a steady gem-flow and construction 6 researched, these will rarely be optimal choices, but in the beginning of the game, they are sometimes well worth it. They are cheap and provide offensive punch and very good defence respectively. A 1-hander and a shield will not only cost more in both gems and mage-time, but also bring some problems. Earth shields increase encumbrance, which may be a problem, and the high defence of the staff is much better than a shield when you are up against a big brute that hits hard (Agarthan Ancient Lord with a 2h Sword of Sharpness maybe).

Weapons need to be evaluated in a context.

[Valerius]

exactly.

No. This would hurt them plenty, as it cuts down their options against enemy thugs and SCs, the glam nations have very low strength scores on their raiders and need good, cheap weapons. This is where they ALREADY have trouble in games, raiding and killing PD isn't the issue.

Surely you don't say that glamor thug nations have troubles against SCs? That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't think it's a good thing to be able to equip your cheap thugs with universal gear that is good against both chaff and SCs. Chaff killing gear should be ineffective against SCs and SC killing gear should be more expensive.

The Frost Brand is not a good anti-SC weapon; 16 damage plus a strength of 13 means that a Sidhe Lord could do some damage to an SC but he's not likely to win. A Fire Brand obviously improves his damage potential but I still don't consider that SC killing gear. SC killing gear has a damage multiplier against the intended target (undead, construct, etc) or perhaps AN damage. And as far as I know, all the real anti-SC weapons are not very good for chaff.

Sure, you can kill SCs with glamour thugs but you can also lose them very easily. 15 HP doesn't give much of a margin for error.

Really, I'm trying to figure out what problem these suggestions are intended to address. It's not like low HP units with brands (or glamour nations for that matter, since the nerf to glamour) are dominating the game and imperiling SCs. To each their own; that's the nice thing about mods. But personally I'd prefer not to see these changes in CBM. Heck, I'd like to see a boost to Eriu, not kill it off completely. :)

[Squirrelloid]

Disagree with Amorphous re: Wraithsword. I would never forge one. Ever. Shadow Brand or Dusk dagger are both vastly preferable, and cost fewer gems to boot. Sure, they both require 2 paths, but you must have gems *somewhere*. And generally you're going to be using your d gems for other things, so chances are its d you're short on and something else you have in excess quantity. Heck, if it must be d gems, I'd take a bane blade over a wraith sword since its 1/5 the price!

2h weapons need to be better than 1h weapons to make up for the fact that you can't use a shield, even if that shield is the one you came with as stock gear. Wraithsword is just useless.

Now, I accept that the 2h sword of sharpness has a place. Its also better than the 1h sword of sharpness, as it should be. But wraith sword is expensive, late in research, and inferior to a large number of other weapons. For its cost it should be the best weapon for some task. Its not.

Other weapons that could use improvement:
-Implementor Axe
-Enchanted Pike (not sufficiently better than Enchanted Spear or Enchanted Sword, consider 12 damage)
-Sword of Swiftness (consider 16 base damage to even plausibly compete with frostbrand)

[Jarkko]

If you have a Fomorian King with Water, then you *definitively* do not want to craft a Wraith Sword for him. You want a FrostBran for him, and even with zero water gems, you'll get ahead by first alchemising the death-gems to water-gems... Why would you want to lose the shield on Fomorian King so that you could be wielding an inferior weapon?

That already tells just how bad the Wraith Sword is. Never seen one used by a player under Dom3 (but there are other things I never see which others think are common, so that doesn't prove anything :) ).

[Amorphous]

Disagree with Amorphous re: Wraithsword. I would never forge one. Ever. Shadow Brand or Dusk dagger are both vastly preferable, and cost fewer gems to boot. Sure, they both require 2 paths, but you must have gems *somewhere*. And generally you're going to be using your d gems for other things, so chances are its d you're short on and something else you have in excess quantity. Heck, if it must be d gems, I'd take a bane blade over a wraith sword since its 1/5 the price!
Neither of those provide you with reinvigoration, so they are not suitable replacements for a Wraith Sword.

If all you are after is damage, a Wraith Sword is not what you need, but there are other situations.

Now, I accept that the 2h sword of sharpness has a place. Its also better than the 1h sword of sharpness, as it should be. But wraith sword is expensive, late in research, and inferior to a large number of other weapons. For its cost it should be the best weapon for some task. Its not.
If you want lifedrain you have to choose between Wraith Sword, Blood Thorn or Standard of the Damned, but that last one is in form of an item spell.

Other weapons that could use improvement:
-Implementor Axe
I do not really see it. It seems more of a speciality weapon to me. The help to pillaging is huge, and the fear does not hurt. It is not the best for fighting, but then, that does not seem for what it is primarily intended.

-Enchanted Pike (not sufficiently better than Enchanted Spear or Enchanted Sword, consider 12 damage)
The Enchanted Pike has always seemed a weapon intended to be utilized as a repel-weapon. As such, it seems to me that boosting attack or defence would be a better choice.

-Sword of Swiftness (consider 16 base damage to even plausibly compete with frostbrand)
I find this one occasionally useful, but if you really need to boost it, why not increase its attack instead? Reasonably you want this weapon for lots of attacks - probably in order to overcome high defence.


If you have a Fomorian King with Water, then you *definitively* do not want to craft a Wraith Sword for him. You want a FrostBran for him, and even with zero water gems, you'll get ahead by first alchemising the death-gems to water-gems... Why would you want to lose the shield on Fomorian King so that you could be wielding an inferior weapon?

That already tells just how bad the Wraith Sword is. Never seen one used by a player under Dom3 (but there are other things I never see which others think are common, so that doesn't prove anything :) ).
Again, this does not solve the reinvigoration issue.

If all you are looking for is high damage numbers, it does not make any sense to even attempt to fix the Wraith Sword. Just remove it along with any other weapons with special abilities that do not directly detract from the hp of your opponents.

If you need reinvigoration and you insist on wielding a Frost Brand, fine, but you have to get the reinvigoration from somewhere else, because the sword is certainly not solving the issue. So where do you get it, the gems for it and the needed slots?

As long as that is not done, the statement that the brand or any other weapon is superior in comparison to the Wraith Sword is not really worth anything.

[Squirrelloid]

Disagree with Amorphous re: Wraithsword. I would never forge one. Ever. Shadow Brand or Dusk dagger are both vastly preferable, and cost fewer gems to boot. Sure, they both require 2 paths, but you must have gems *somewhere*. And generally you're going to be using your d gems for other things, so chances are its d you're short on and something else you have in excess quantity. Heck, if it must be d gems, I'd take a bane blade over a wraith sword since its 1/5 the price!
Neither of those provide you with reinvigoration, so they are not suitable replacements for a Wraith Sword.

If all you are after is damage, a Wraith Sword is not what you need, but there are other situations.

Now, I accept that the 2h sword of sharpness has a place. Its also better than the 1h sword of sharpness, as it should be. But wraith sword is expensive, late in research, and inferior to a large number of other weapons. For its cost it should be the best weapon for some task. Its not.
If you want lifedrain you have to choose between Wraith Sword, Blood Thorn or Standard of the Damned, but that last one is in form of an item spell.

Reinvigoration: there are plenty of non-weapon ways to get this, none of whom require you to make attacks to get the reinvigoration. And if the option is a crappy weapon and reinvigoration or a good weapon and reinvigoration from elsewhere, especially when a good weapon + an item of reinvigoration is << the cost of a wraithsword, well, i'll take the two item solution every time.

Lifedrain: When has any thug or SC design required lifedrain to be useful, especially since its so trivial to counter? Seriously, cast Soul Vortex already if you want it that badly...

The only thug I can think of that cares about a weapon like this is the Skratti, who will take the Blood Thorn every time because blood slaves are cheap and expendable (and it takes fewer slaves than the wraithsword does d, and is 1h to boot!)

At 10d the wraithsword would still be overpriced for what it does.

You've still failed to show a reason anyone would actually build one of the things, especially when the alternatives are all better by any metric, including the exact features that might tempt one to make a wraith sword to begin with. When you stack on this that what a wraith sword does is not especially useful for thugs or SCs as they are typically geared, and the wraith sword saddles its relatively unimportant good features with an otherwise bad weapon at a ridiculous gem price, its pretty clear no one would ever bother to use it.

Again, this does not solve the reinvigoration issue.

If all you are looking for is high damage numbers, it does not make any sense to even attempt to fix the Wraith Sword. Just remove it along with any other weapons with special abilities that do not directly detract from the hp of your opponents.

If you need reinvigoration and you insist on wielding a Frost Brand, fine, but you have to get the reinvigoration from somewhere else, because the sword is certainly not solving the issue. So where do you get it, the gems for it and the needed slots?

As long as that is not done, the statement that the brand or any other weapon is superior in comparison to the Wraith Sword is not really worth anything.

Boots of the Messenger. 5n. A Fomorian druid forges it for 3n with a hammer (your pretender has E to make the hammer). Frost brand + boots of the messenger = 3w + 3n with hammers << 18d for a wraithsword, and vastly better at any function.

Alternately: FK casts Soul Vortex...

[Mardagg]

I have to repeat here,that u cant really compare partial life draining to reinvigoration/regeneration items.
Also,isnt the item spell full life drain?

-There are certain opponents where life drain doesnt work
-U have to hit first and then do damage for life drain to work

Coupled with the fact,that the stats of the Wraith Sword are pretty bad,this generally makes it far inferior as a choice for solving solely Reinvig/Regen issues vs the other items doing that.
Also,since its 2 handed you are missing out the 2nd hand slot for getting e.g. another misc slot(ring of regen).

Generally i want to make many 2h melee items and some 1h melee items a better choice by improving the stats and by slightly nerfing the fire/frost brand.
Its not my intention to just do a "simple" nerf here, even though they surely do offer too much for the price.

As it stands i would say,that nerfing the fire brand to say 6AP base damage and nerfing the frost brand to say 12 base damage, without improving the others,would still make them the top choice as an all around weapon, by far,and as such wouldnt change much except for some raider nations like you said,Eriu for example.
Thats a bad idea and therefore just 1 piece of the puzzle.
If you leave them as they are and just improve the other weapons u would have to make several 2h weapons actually very overpowered so that they are able to replace the brands in many situations.

[Squirrelloid]

Mardagg:
I don't think nerfing frost/fire brands is a positive change for the reasons listed by others. They already have to deal with Protection 30+ SCs, and aren't especially efficient at it as is. Most weapons do have uses, however niche, there's just a few that are never going to see play as is. I picked out the only three I can't see any reason to ever use, and possibly the halberd of might could use a boost (but i'm not sure to what).

[Mardagg]

yeah,i am having a hard time to find ideas for the halberd of might,too.

The fire brand is pretty good vs high protection SC`s.
The frost brand is worse,but its cheaper.
They are both 1handed weapons and shields are pretty good in SC vs SC battles,too.

I am arguing,that equipping every SC and every thug with a fire brand is a no brainer,bc u can do quite some damage vs every type of opponent,be it chaff,thug or SC.
And you then even get to equip a shield in addition.
Again,the problem is that just improving some 2handed weapons,like the Wraith Sword,wouldnt change much unless u make them overpowered.The Brands have to be nerfed on the base damage if you want to make 2h weapons more balanced imo.

[Mardagg]

Also,nerfing the base damage of the brands would open options for some other 1h weapons as well,i.e. all weapons with good to very good base damage but without AoE damage could fill a niche spot in the future.

And just to clarify:

Nerfing the base damage will not affect the AoE damage.Those are not influenced by each other.
The Brands will still be very powerful therefore.

[Sombre]

I do not really see it. It seems more of a speciality weapon to me. The help to pillaging is huge, and the fear does not hurt. It is not the best for fighting, but then, that does not seem for what it is primarily intended.

The task for which it was primarily intended isn't worth the investment and can't be made so. In order for people to make use of it, it therefore needs to be improved in other areas.

Has anyone ever used the imp axe to pillage? Apart from to test it?

The Enchanted Pike has always seemed a weapon intended to be utilized as a repel-weapon. As such, it seems to me that boosting attack or defence would be a better choice.

See above. It isn't possible to make repel worth the investment without breaking the item in terms of att and dmg. Also def has nothing to do with repel. If it had att 99 dmg 99 len 6 the repel would be better than awe 0 (anyone passing a non modified morale check will take 1 damage and ignore it, anyone else will take 1 damage and that particular attack they made will be stopped). Still worse than awe 1 though. If it had att 4 and dmg 15 (reasonable stats) then the repel would be much, much worse than awe 0. The actual attacking and doing damage with the weapon is always going to outweigh the repel side of it by miles, simply because of the way repel works.

Again, this does not solve the reinvigoration issue.

If all you are looking for is high damage numbers, it does not make any sense to even attempt to fix the Wraith Sword. Just remove it along with any other weapons with special abilities that do not directly detract from the hp of your opponents.

If you need reinvigoration and you insist on wielding a Frost Brand, fine, but you have to get the reinvigoration from somewhere else, because the sword is certainly not solving the issue. So where do you get it, the gems for it and the needed slots?

A one handed weapon and a reinvig item take the same number of slots as the wraithsword (2) and are cheaper and better.

Throwing out anything that doesn't do /exactly/ what the wraithsword does while being cheaper and claiming that means the wraithsword has a use does not make sense. Nothing else does exactly what the imp axe does - does that mean it would be fine at 25 death gems and 6 research too?

[Psycho]

A common Eriu/Van thug with a fire brand does around 30 AP damage. Rarely will you see a SC with the protection over 30, so that is 15 hp of damage, which gives your thug a decent chance of killing a SC. Set your thug to attack rear and he'll get a few free hits while the SC kills your chaff. You will either manage to kill the SC if he doesn't regenerate much or retreat once enough chaff is killed.

That's a situation when you don't specifically plan for fighting a SC. If you plan for him, you can equip 3 thugs with scourges for 9 fire gems and script them to flight, attack large. If you can add in a water mage for quickening (it doesn't even require gems now, another thing that should be nerfed back), let me see what SC is going to stand up to 12 hits dealing so much damage per turn. How cheap a counter is that to a SC that costs dozens of gems. I am assuming an undead/demon SC as those are most common, use moon blade for magic beings, etc.

It's really a simple task outfitting a couple thugs to kill a SC. The harder part will be actually engaging him in combat (returning, stealthy SCs). I think people are used to gem-gen games and don't realize how sparse gems can be without them. A recruitable-everywhere teleportable stealthy thug is a huge thing.

Fire brand + vine shield is a no-brainer for any type of opposition. Is that a good thing?

[Amorphous]

The task for which it was primarily intended isn't worth the investment and can't be made so. In order for people to make use of it, it therefore needs to be improved in other areas.

Has anyone ever used the imp axe to pillage? Apart from to test it?
I cannot say that I have used the axe, but then I am not that good at pillaging. However that may be, if the ability is worthless as you say, why even keep the axe in the game?


See above. It isn't possible to make repel worth the investment without breaking the item in terms of att and dmg. Also def has nothing to do with repel. If it had att 99 dmg 99 len 6 the repel would be better than awe 0 (anyone passing a non modified morale check will take 1 damage and ignore it, anyone else will take 1 damage and that particular attack they made will be stopped). Still worse than awe 1 though. If it had att 4 and dmg 15 (reasonable stats) then the repel would be much, much worse than awe 0. The actual attacking and doing damage with the weapon is always going to outweigh the repel side of it by miles, simply because of the way repel works.
Apologies, I did not mean to say that defence directly helps with repelling, but the defence helps when your opponents make their morale save. Also it lessens the defence difference with a shield.

Your bog standard shield has parry 4, defence -1 and encumbrance 1, increasing your total defence and parry value with 3. As a sort of standard measure I would say that increasing the defence of a 2-hander with 2 in comparison with a 1-handed variant makes them about equal. You get 1 less total defence and parry value, but since it is pure defence, the top is slightly better and you do get less encumbrance. Making the Enchanted Pike e.g. 3/4 in attack/defence would certainly make it an option over the Enchanted Spear and depending on how you value weapon length it should be in the match with the Enchanted Sword.

While I certainly agree with your assessment of awe as better than repel, I do not think it relevant in this case. None of the items we are comparing have it after all.

Also, repel is certainly not worthless. It is not something that lets you wade into mêlée at leisure, but it does help your defence.


A one handed weapon and a reinvig item take the same number of slots as the wraithsword (2) and are cheaper and better.

Throwing out anything that doesn't do /exactly/ what the wraithsword does while being cheaper and claiming that means the wraithsword has a use does not make sense. Nothing else does exactly what the imp axe does - does that mean it would be fine at 25 death gems and 6 research too?
Look, I keep having to repeat this over and over again: It is not cheaper if you do not have the relevant gems. No matter how many times cheapness is invoked, it still remains untrue in various cases of gem income distribution. A reinvigoration item for 5 nature gems costs you 20 death gems, if that are all the gems you have. A 1-hander is then at least another 5 gems.

I have never required exactly the same as lifedrain, I just require its rough equivalent. Let us examine the aforementioned Fomorian King with a water pick:

We do not have any earth and nature gems to spend on him (and no blood mages in sight either). Not because we do not have any such income, but because it is not good enough to provide for all the Kings and thuggish commanders we produce from our castles and want to be sent to the front in a thuggish capacity. We will be able to provide a lot of the Kings with earth or nature items, but not all of them. So let us put that huge income of death gems to use. 20 of them we convert to nature and a pair of Boots of the Messenger, which nets us reinvigoration 4. Let us further assume that we can scrape together 5 water gems for a Frost Brand for a total cost of 20 death and 5 water gems. So 4 attack and 2 defence from the brand and -1 defence and +4 parry for a total of 4/5 attack/defence. Encumbrance is 5 which translates to 8 for casting purposes. Net fatigue gain is 1 per turn. Casting Quicken self is not a good idea, as that would render the fatigue gain 6 per turn. The 28 fatigue you get from casting it is not easily reinvigorated either.

The other version is just putting down 25 death gems for a Wraith Sword. Attack and defence is 2/3 and encumbrance 4, 6 for casting purposes. Whenever he hits (for 34 damage, which is less than 41, but quite enough to hurt a lot of things), he is reinvigorated for 10. One hit every other turn is enough to get a better reinvigoration rate than the frost version and he is gaining fatigue slower. Now, the wraith version benefits greatly from casting Quicken Self. He would gain fatigue at a rate of 8 per turn, so as long as he manages to do a total of 4 damage over his 2 attacks in a turn, he is set. Quickening also means an improvement of attack/defence of 3/3, bringing the total up to 5/6, which is better than the other, and no shield hits to worry about. Direct damage is now 2x34 instead of 41, which means that for protection values of 27 and under it is as good as or better than with the Frost Brand.

Of course, this does not mean that the Wraith Sword is always a better choice even under the given gem-constraints. The frost version will still be generally better at clearing chaff non-resistant to cold and targets with protection values a bit higher than 27. Fielding troops and thugs with cold resistance against nations utilizing Frost Brands, Rime Hauberks and Breath of Winter should not be unusual though. And there are plenty of nations that do not have the capability of fielding legions of 30+ protection units.

Again, it is a question of gem-scarcity and solving a problem that actually exists. Getting reinvigoration is just not particularly cheap when you lack the needed supply of nature or earth gems or the paths and research for the right spells. And at least in my experience, thugs and SCs that accrue fatigue to quickly tend to die.

[Jarkko]

A Fomoria without Earth bless would be quite interesting. I wouldn't care to try that though.

There is absolutely zero chance I would craft a wraith sword over a frostbrand as Fomoria. The brand gives the King total frost immunity, which opens up a lot of other possibilities too :)

[Mardagg]

Of course, this does not mean that the Wraith Sword is always a better choice even under the given gem-constraints. .

And that is exactly the problem.

You are painting a best case scenario containing 1 out of 3 producable Fomorian cap only SC`s with several given gem-constraints where the Wraith Sword should be an instant no-brainer under better balanced conditions.
And it still is not!

Even with your example of a rare situation there is still a lot left,that can be done different:

-Earth blessing,pretty advisable with that nation anyways,gives further reinvig which do change quite a lot with your math
-Instead of using the W random Giants,you could use the D randoms and cast soul vortex,equipping these guys with other equipment in addition,making them superior.
-You could give the W guys boots of quickness,a W1 path isnt ideal for casting water buffs in battle anyways.
-The rainbow armor is pretty nice for the giants in general instead of boots of the messenger,if available,can be alchemized,too.
-Girdle of might is cheaper to alchemize and might leave gems for 1 more item,while just offering 1 less reinvig.
-etc.

I understand what you are talking about gem sparsity and such, but why not still making the Wraith sword better?
Do you really think those fomorian giants would be overpowered with like double the base damage for the wraith sword or with making it like 10-15 death gems?
As you said,with that inherent strength, you get the max partial life drain,if you hit,anyways already most of the time.
Different from fomorioa though like 95% of the other nations would benefit quite some time from such an improvement ...and for those nations the wraith sword is just never,ever an option atm,even under the most special conditions!

[Amorphous]

A Fomoria without Earth bless would be quite interesting. I wouldn't care to try that though.
While I have not played Fomoria completely without earth bless, I have done so with an E4 bless and that worked out ok. 2 extra reinvigoration from a bless does not really change much about the above concerning Quicken Self, though.

There is absolutely zero chance I would craft a wraith sword over a frostbrand as Fomoria. The brand gives the King total frost immunity, which opens up a lot of other possibilities too :)
There are lots of ways to reach cold immunity with Fomorian Kings. Both Breath of Winter and cold resistance are easily castable for the Kings with water picks. And Rime Hauberks sometimes make sense.


And that is exactly the problem.

You are painting a best case scenario containing 1 out of 3 producable Fomorian cap only SC`s with several given gem-constraints where the Wraith Sword should be an instant no-brainer under better balanced conditions.
And it still is not!
I do not agree that it should be an instant no-brainer.
Death is powerful enough as is.

Even with your example of a rare situation there is still a lot left,that can be done different:

-Earth blessing,pretty advisable with that nation anyways,gives further reinvig which do change quite a lot with your math
A smallish does not.
And I hope you are not suggesting that high earth bless should be mandatory.

-Instead of using the W random Giants,you could use the D randoms and cast soul vortex,equipping these guys with other equipment in addition,making them superior.
Death gems only, remember.
And, well, you might not have alteration 6 researched and have some other research target in sight for the moment.

-You could give the W guys boots of quickness,a W1 path isnt ideal for casting water buffs in battle anyways.
-The rainbow armor is pretty nice for the giants in general instead of boots of the messenger,if available,can be alchemized,too.
-Girdle of might is cheaper to alchemize and might leave gems for 1 more item,while just offering 1 less reinvig.
Again the addition of more non-death gems.

-etc.
Yes lots of things could be different, they also could not.

I understand what you are talking about gem sparsity and such, but why not still making the Wraith sword better?
Do you really think those fomorian giants would be overpowered with like double the base damage for the wraith sword or with making it like 10-15 death gems?
As you said,with that inherent strength, you get the max partial life drain,if you hit,anyways already most of the time.
Different from fomorioa though like 95% of the other nations would benefit quite some time from such an improvement ...and for those nations the wraith sword is just never,ever an option atm,even under the most special conditions!
It is death that I do not think warrants the boost.
Sure, if it were any other path, we might discuss going down to 15 gems, but since it is not, I do not.
I also would not mind a minor buff to it (say +1 to attack and maybe +3 to damage), but nothing in line with what has been presented as of yet.

[Sombre]

I cannot say that I have used the axe, but then I am not that good at pillaging. However that may be, if the ability is worthless as you say, why even keep the axe in the game?

Because it's a fear causing weapon with an interesting description? You're saying it's fine because it has a specific thing it helps with a lot. I'm saying that thing is basically worthless and no-one uses it for that. In cases like this it makes sense to improve the weapon so it's usable for other reasons, with the pillage as a tiny niche bonus.


Making the Enchanted Pike e.g. 3/4 in attack/defence would certainly make it an option over the Enchanted Spear and depending on how you value weapon length it should be in the match with the Enchanted Sword.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with repel, that's the point. Repel isn't /worthless/, it's just so totally overshadowed by everything else that it's not worth trying to boost. If you increased the stats that actually had anything to do with repel, the improvement would be like 95% damage dealt, 5% repel. So why try to tailor the boost to do anything related to repelling? Why pretend that the added att and dmg is there to make the repel better?

Also, repel is certainly not worthless. It is not something that lets you wade into mêlée at leisure, but it does help your defence.

Sure. And 1 extra hp helps your survivability and isn't worthless. Who cares? It's too slight a difference to be meaningful and definitely not the feature around which you'd balance an item.

More of the same

You keep talking about this situation where you have lots of death and apparently no gems of other sorts. If you're that focused on death why the hell would you be using it on a wraithsword when your thugs are going to be enc 0 undead? Why pay a premium to try and get reinvig when you can just sidestep it? You're comparing wraithsword to alchemising gems wholescale into a different type (something truly inefficient) and it's still barely coming out ahead in cost, even with apparently the ideal SC chassis to carry it.

[Micah]

I've made an implementor axe, for the fear (only once the whole time I've played dom, but still.) I don't think I've ever made a pike though.

Wraith swords are junk. The stuff they work well on in any over-convoluted example is the same stuff you're going to wade through with pretty much any gear kit. They are also a problem because your fatigue is all front-loaded if you cast buffs before combat, whereas with reinvig items you don't have to wait for melee to bleed off the extra fatigue. Your theoretical life drain potential in rounds 7-50 of a combat doesn't matter if you die to crits on round 6.

Swords of swiftness are awesome weapons, I don't understand how they even came up in this conversation.

[Squirrelloid]

I'd like to know what games Amorphous is playing where he has excess death gems and no other type. I've *never* had that problem!

Edit: Micah, when would you ever use a damage 8 weapon, even if it does have 2 attacks? 1 damage +16 attack is almost certainly better than 2 damage +8 attacks in almost any circumstance, even before counting the AoE cold damage.

[Mardagg]

I do not agree that it should be an instant no-brainer.
Death is powerful enough as is.




Thats much more complicated.
Essentially,every built Wraith sword means less Tartarians to field.
Seriously,you have so many uses for death gems,that making the wraith sword better only makes the decision more difficult what to do with them.
Keep in mind also,that lowering the cost means lowering the casting requirements.E.g. D2 mages are better to come by for every nation.
Death alyways will be a very strong path,no matter how you alter the items,thats just how it is in DOM3.
I would be much more hesitant to add a new and very good fire item on the other hand since that would have a much bigger impact on the overall balance already known in this game.



A smallish does not.
And I hope you are not suggesting that high earth bless should be mandatory.



Say u take only E4 bless,just +2 reinvig ,makes your example already slightly in favor of the frost brand +boots of messenger build imo.Although i still cant figure out,what shield u did take,when you are mentioning parry.
And thats not even the best build following your (not advisable)alchemize strategy imo: instead of alchemizing the gems for the boots you could alchemize for the cheap girdle,leaving you more gems left,not less(!), or you could alchemize for the rainbow armor,adding MR in addition to reinvig,which is also nice to have for the giants.




Death gems only, remember.
And, well, you might not have alteration 6 researched and have some other research target in sight for the moment.




Sure,Soul vortex might not yet be researched.
Isnt it just better then to wait for soul vortex to be researched or to make it an early research goal before mass producing SC`s with expensive weapons that become obsolete?


@ Micah
I am also curious about the Sword of Swiftness?
Its 10 gems,9 damage,1/4 Att/Def,2 attacks.
You probably mean the def reducing ability for every attack after the first for quickened thugs wielding it?
That might be enough to be on par with the frost brand..after nerfing it to 12-14 damage.Its still more expensive though than the AoE and Cold resistance offering brand.
Currently i would lean towards improving the SoS by just a tiny bit further.

[Sombre]

Swords of swiftness are great because they both add def and counter def. With reasonable strength they turn thugs into confetti while keeping you alive. Even better when you dual wield them and crazier still if you're quickened - it adds up to such a huge def disparity with the opponent that they'd need really, really nice attack to get through and must have high prot to avoid being diced.

[Mardagg]

U can also dual wield the brands:)
But i see,having 8 attacks vs 4 attacks there is quite a difference indeed.
You surely got already quite some niche uses for SoS therefore.
So its certainly not a must to change it.
Maybe 1 more damage and/or 1 more defense(thematically) for the price?

Dual wielding omits shield ...having just read through the combat mechanics again,those shield hits seem to be pretty strong and nice to have,though.And shields add defense,too.

Btw,did i understand it right,that flails/morningstars not only add 2 att vs shield,but also ignore them completely when damage is dealt,thus no shield hits possible?

[Amorphous]

Because it's a fear causing weapon with an interesting description? You're saying it's fine because it has a specific thing it helps with a lot. I'm saying that thing is basically worthless and no-one uses it for that. In cases like this it makes sense to improve the weapon so it's usable for other reasons, with the pillage as a tiny niche bonus.
I did not intend to say that it was fine, merely that I did not really understand what you found wrong with it. My understanding now is that you want the fear but could not care less about the pillaging. Is that correct?

I am of the opinion that if something is really worthless, then it should not be present in the stats of an item - the story around it may be a different thing. And if you remove the pillage bonus from the axe, I do not really see it as the same axe anymore. Conceivably I could be convinced otherwise.


Yes, but that has nothing to do with repel, that's the point. Repel isn't /worthless/, it's just so totally overshadowed by everything else that it's not worth trying to boost. If you increased the stats that actually had anything to do with repel, the improvement would be like 95% damage dealt, 5% repel. So why try to tailor the boost to do anything related to repelling? Why pretend that the added att and dmg is there to make the repel better?
I was thinking more in the line of theme preserving.

As you may have noticed I proposed an increase in defence, not in damage. And I see a repel weapon as rather defensive. I mentioned attack earlier as well, because each increase of 2 there, would make another repel attack likely (morale save remains the same). Thus in keeping with the theme while making the weapon noticeably better.


Sure. And 1 extra hp helps your survivability and isn't worthless. Who cares? It's too slight a difference to be meaningful and definitely not the feature around which you'd balance an item.
I do not think it is so worthless that it lacks any meaning. It is of rather small use, sure, but certainly not negligible. If you are swamped in opponents, I can see it, but against single or few it can matter. Consequently it should be a factor in balancing.


You keep talking about this situation where you have lots of death and apparently no gems of other sorts. If you're that focused on death why the hell would you be using it on a wraithsword when your thugs are going to be enc 0 undead? Why pay a premium to try and get reinvig when you can just sidestep it? You're comparing wraithsword to alchemising gems wholescale into a different type (something truly inefficient) and it's still barely coming out ahead in cost, even with apparently the ideal SC chassis to carry it.
I do not know that it is the ideal chassis, it was just the first thing that sprang to my mind. There are other strong commanders in the game that do not have 0 encumbrance. And if you have access to them, summoning undead thugs may just not be very efficient. If you have so many thugs that you have trouble decking them out, summoning more that are not any better than the ones you already have is not going to help much.

However that may be, if an item functions in a niche - though small - I do not think it needs any big boost. I like a few seldom used niche items in the game.

It is also not really a question of you not having any other gems than death gems, it is a question of not having enough other gems to cover all your needs. That happens to me a lot in my games at least.

Sure, I can think of what I would like to forge for my commanders, but if I do not have enough of the right gems, I have to make do with items that would be suboptimal given another gem distribution. And sometimes paying a bit more for an effect now nets you a better position than waiting and hoping for the future to line up nicely in keeping with your vision of reasonable gem income and expenditure.




Thats much more complicated.
Essentially,every built Wraith sword means less Tartarians to field.
No, not if you are constrained more by nature than by death. We have been over this.

Seriously,you have so many uses for death gems,that making the wraith sword better only makes the decision more difficult what to do with them.
Keep in mind also,that lowering the cost means lowering the casting requirements.E.g. D2 mages are better to come by for every nation.
Death alyways will be a very strong path,no matter how you alter the items,thats just how it is in DOM3.
I would be much more hesitant to add a new and very good fire item on the other hand since that would have a much bigger impact on the overall balance already known in this game.
I remain unconvinced by the argument that since death is powerful, we might as well make it more powerful.


Say u take only E4 bless,just +2 reinvig ,makes your example already slightly in favor of the frost brand +boots of messenger build imo.Although i still cant figure out,what shield u did take,when you are mentioning parry.
No, 2 reinvig does not really change it as far as quicken goes. And the shield is the one the Fomorian King comes equiped with.

And thats not even the best build following your (not advisable)alchemize strategy imo: instead of alchemizing the gems for the boots you could alchemize for the cheap girdle,leaving you more gems left,not less(!), or you could alchemize for the rainbow armor,adding MR in addition to reinvig,which is also nice to have for the giants.
Sorry, I was under the impression that the boots cost 5 gems, that is certainly what I used in calculating how many death gems it represented. If not, exchange them for a 5 gem reinvigoration item. Of course, you will then get less invigoration out of it.


Sure,Soul vortex might not yet be researched.
Isnt it just better then to wait for soul vortex to be researched or to make it an early research goal before mass producing SC`s with expensive weapons that become obsolete?
Not necessarily, no. If you are getting the thugs anyway, say by way of recruiting them from your capital, paying more for their equipment now may be more beneficial.



Looking at the thread this far, I do not really see any point to discuss further about the Wraith Sword as things mostly seem to go round and round (my own arguments included). I remain unconvinced, but I am not so stubborn as to not recognize that I seem to be the only one not thinking the sword needs a major overhaul. And I do not wish to take over the thread with a lost cause. I will happily give answers about my views on the Wraith Sword if someone directs a question to me explicitly, but otherwise I will keep my views to myself.

Hope that is agreeable to everyone.

[Mardagg]

Sorry, I was under the impression that the boots cost 5 gems, that is certainly what I used in calculating how many death gems it represented. If not, exchange them for a 5 gem reinvigoration item. Of course, you will then get less invigoration out of it.




yes,you are right.I was somehow under the impression the boots are 10N.Sorry for this.

I hope you will still take part in the discussion about the brands since the opinions seem to differ much more there.

[Micah]

Sombre hit it for me.

To elaborate: I don't see how you can compare 7 damage to ANOTHER FULL ATTACK and come out on the side of 7 damage as being universally better. The CR on the brand is often useless since undead are already 100% CR, and the AoE doesn't beat a second swing in many cases in terms of chaff control. Additionally, the SoSwiftness is the best (non-unique) defensive 1-hander you can get.

It's not a weapon for weak, cheap raiders, it's a weapon for nice SCs that have enough strength to really administer beatdowns with each swing, even if they're just using a toothpick. At that point the 4 extra gems over a frost brand for the 2 points of defense and ability to really multi-attack your opponent's defense down starts to look like a great deal. Pair with chi shoes for yet more defense and you get 3 attacks for a full square-clear each action against the common size-2 chaff. (Including skelspam, which a frost brand sucks against.) Oh, and add weapons of sharpness from a support mage and the extra attack really leaves the slight bonus damage from the brand in the dust since it increases the damage-prot differential substantially.

[Mardagg]

Micah,good points.
I still would mainly niche use it dual wielding with ambidextrous thugs/Sc`s.
Dont forget that the frost brand got 4/2 att/def.So the first strike is more likely to hit than the first strike of the SoS.
That way,you might get more often the full 16 damage with the brand ,whereas the SoS profits a lot more from every subsequent attack,missing the first 9 damage here and there.
But,to exploit that, u gotta dual wielding it ,missing out the shields...it essentially becomes a 2h weapon for 10 W gems then.
Certainly not a underpowered one ,though,thats sure.

[Sombre]

I am of the opinion that if something is really worthless, then it should not be present in the stats of an item - the story around it may be a different thing. And if you remove the pillage bonus from the axe, I do not really see it as the same axe anymore. Conceivably I could be convinced otherwise.

You can't remove the pillage bonus from the axe.

[Mardagg]

Ok,since i will be away for 1-2 days soon,i will summarize what we got so far:


1-Handed Items

-nerfing the Fire and Frost Brand is undecided

-improving Sword of Swiftness is only of minor importance,if at all

-making the Shadow Brand stronger and more expensive seems declined

2-Handed Items

-improving Wraith Sword by quite a lot is accepted

-certain other 2h items need to be improved is accepted

Shields

-Vine shield being overpowered is undecided
(how does the strength check exactly work?)

Uniques

-making fever fetish non-unique is declined

- the need for a new easier available earth booster is accepted
(personally i like the idea of making the tome of gaiea non-unique and naming it e.g. bloodroot manual(like sombre said) very much)

[Mardagg]

I would like to point the discussion now towards the Hell Sword a bit,i mentioned it already in the opening post.
Its certainly better than its "Death cousin" at the moment,but still underpowered imo.
And if you make the Wraith Sword stronger,u gotta make the Hell Sword stronger,it feels.
I do share some concerns here though,that have been brought up for the Wraith Sword.
Fire and Blood magic is only for some nations and Blood is easily massable.That way,the Hellsword could easily be made overpowered.

Current stats are:
15 Blood/10 Fire , 3/0 Att/def,9 damage
Partial Life drain,FR 50%,Berserk +3

Its the special effects that make it better than the WS,but the raw point values are slightly worse,simply too bad for a heavy 2 handed weapon,meant to be Construction 6.
I think one of the following ideas would be thematic:

1.Increasing attack to 6 or 7,maybe increasing damage in addition,to like 12-14
or
2.making it Armor piercing and maybe increasing attack to 4-5

What do you think?

[Amorphous]

I am of the opinion that if something is really worthless, then it should not be present in the stats of an item - the story around it may be a different thing. And if you remove the pillage bonus from the axe, I do not really see it as the same axe anymore. Conceivably I could be convinced otherwise.

You can't remove the pillage bonus from the axe.
My thinking was more in the line of effectively removing the axe and creating a new weapon with fear and the same look, but no pillage bonus.

Is that not possible?

[vfb]

It's not that the pillage bonus on the Axe is weak, so much as pillaging itself is just pretty much a waste of time.

The RNG does like handing out Implementor Axes; at least I've frequently gotten a few. Or maybe I just notice them because they mostly sit around in my lab.

[Squirrelloid]

I am of the opinion that if something is really worthless, then it should not be present in the stats of an item - the story around it may be a different thing. And if you remove the pillage bonus from the axe, I do not really see it as the same axe anymore. Conceivably I could be convinced otherwise.

You can't remove the pillage bonus from the axe.
My thinking was more in the line of effectively removing the axe and creating a new weapon with fear and the same look, but no pillage bonus.

Is that not possible?

Why not just increase the damage and stats on the axe so someone might think about actually making/using one? I mean, so it has a pillaging bonus... whatever. That's not worth anything, so it shouldn't effect our valuation of what it does and what it should do.

[Sombre]

I am of the opinion that if something is really worthless, then it should not be present in the stats of an item - the story around it may be a different thing. And if you remove the pillage bonus from the axe, I do not really see it as the same axe anymore. Conceivably I could be convinced otherwise.

You can't remove the pillage bonus from the axe.
My thinking was more in the line of effectively removing the axe and creating a new weapon with fear and the same look, but no pillage bonus.

Is that not possible?

No. It's also pointless, since you can just boost the imp axe and ignore the pillage bonus no-one cares about.

If you want to know what's actually possible rather than having to ask me or assume anything, I suggest looking in the mod manual. In fact no-one should be allowed to post in this thread unless they actually understand what can be done to weapons/items via mod commands.

[Valerius]

In fact no-one should be allowed to post in this thread unless they actually understand what can be done to weapons/items via mod commands.

Well, I'm glad it's been clarified who is allowed to post in this thread.

[Tollund]

He's got a point. There are plenty of people suggesting things that can't be done by modding. They are even suggesting that these things be done after posts which explicitly state that those things can't be done. I think it's been mentioned twice now that the pillage bonus on the implementor axe can't be modded out.

[Sombre]

In fact no-one should be allowed to post in this thread unless they actually understand what can be done to weapons/items via mod commands.

Well, I'm glad it's been clarified who is allowed to post in this thread.

Your sarcasm has made me see the light. Let's all suggest things that can't be done and argue with each other about them at great length rather than spend the five minutes or so required to understand the limits of weapon and item modding. You know, by reading the doc readily available to every single person who has patched their game up to date. Expecting people to have done this before weighing in is nearly as unreasonable as expecting people to have used CBM or actually played dominions before posting here.

[Valerius]

Your sarcasm has made me see the light.

A sarcastic response to sarcasm. How novel.

Let's all suggest things that can't be done blah, blah, blah.

I could spend time arguing this but it's pointless. It's really very simple. You are not one to let an opportunity for snideness or obnoxiousness pass. It's what you do.

[Sombre]

Wow you sure piled the irony on in that one. Let's get back to the thread though shall we?

What about underused magical spears having the #charge tag? This has already been modded in before and allows for some nice tricks with high AP thugs. Consider the spear of sharpness - currently never built over the sword of sharpness. But if it had charge,..?

[Sir_Dr_D]

Sombre. I just finished browsing the modding manual. I was just about to suggest the same thing you did. All spears should have the charge effect. I don't think it will make the items that more usefull, but at least they would be more interesting. [Edit - by spear of sharpness you probably mean stinger. And the answer is yes, if the spear had the charge ability I would consider taking it as a replacement for the single handed sword of sharpness on occasion.]

---------------------

I have a question about what #type and #weapon, or #armor do for magic items. Would it allow us to say the bloodstone is a weapon or armor, and in addition to what it normally does, also have the ability of the armor/weapon?

[Sir_Dr_D]

Lets do a general comparison between 2-handed weapons and one handed weapons.

Single Handed Sword of Sharpness:
Damage - 8
Attack - 1
Defense - 2
Length - 2

Two handed sword of sharpness:
Damage - 12
Attack - 2
Defense - 3
Length - 3


[ EDIT - I am showing a couple other items for comparison ]
1 handed bane blade:
Damage - 6
Attack - 1
Defense - 2
Length - 2

2 handed bane blade:
Damage - 9
Attack - 2
Defense - 3
Length - 3
**********
Enchanted spear:
Damage - 7
Attack - 3
Defense - 2
Length - 4

Enchanted pike:
Damage - 9
Attack - 3
Defense - 1
Length - 6
******
Most of these diferences are not nearly enough.





Is the difference between these enough to ever warrent getting the two handed version of the single handed version and a shield? I would always get the single handed version. If the two handed is not powerfull enough, how much should it be raised by? This difference could be a guide for all two handed weapons. The two versions of the bane blade could also be compared.

[Sir_Dr_D]

For the wraith sword I have the following suggestions:
- raise its basic stats the same amount that most two handed weapons should be raised.
- Give it either a secondary effect of area fear, or a secondary effect of weakness. Or does the current life draining ability already count as a secondary effect?

[Sombre]

I have a question about what #type and #weapon, or #armor do for magic items. Would it allow us to say the bloodstone is a weapon or armor, and in addition to what it normally does, also have the ability of the armor/weapon?

Yes any item can be defined as granting weapon and/or armour. The key thing to realise is that weapons/armour and items aren't the same thing at all - it's just that armour slot items generally grant armour with the same name and weapon slot weapons generally grant weapons with the same name. But there's no reason not to have, say, a sword and some armour with completely different names granted by a misc item.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Yes any item can be defined as granting weapon and/or armour. The key thing to realise is that weapons/armour and items aren't the same thing at all - it's just that armour slot items generally grant armour with the same name and weapon slot weapons generally grant weapons with the same name. But there's no reason not to have, say, a sword and some armour with completely different names granted by a misc item.

I understand that. Would we be able to :
- select the blood stone.
- change its type to be armor
- attach some armor from the armor list to it.
- rename it to bloodstone armor, and give it a new sprite
- change the cost to make it more expensive

Then would it still grant the abilites of the original blood stone, (i.e earth + 1, and auto gen earth gems) as well as have the stats of the armor it was applied to?

[Tollund]

One could increase the defense values on those weapons so that they are closer to what you'd get with a shield. The shield still gives you the extra protection, secondary effects, and missile protection.

[Sombre]

I understand that. Would we be able to :
- select the blood stone.
- change its type to be armor
- attach some armor from the armor list to it.
- rename it to bloodstone armor, and give it a new sprite
- change the cost to make it more expensive

Then would it still grant the abilites of the original blood stone, (i.e earth + 1, and auto gen earth gems) as well as have the stats of the armor it was applied to?

You would change it to a body slot rather than changing it to be armour, but yeah, you can do that no problem.

[Mardagg]

One could increase the defense values on those weapons so that they are closer to what you'd get with a shield. The shield still gives you the extra protection, secondary effects, and missile protection.

Imo,i think its thematic to raise the damage output for most 2h weapons..
Its somewhat thematic to raise Attack values for some.
But raising defense,except by a low +1 or so, isnt thematic for most.
After all,it are heavy weapons damage-wise but more difficult to use.


Ideally,it should be that...
-1h weapon + shield should still be the top choice for defensive purposes
-2h weapons should be made a good choice in the future for raw offensive power and special tasks,like anti-sc,etc.

For that to work,2h weapons not only have to be a chance stat-wise vs 1h weapon+ shield,they also need to be somewhat balanced with dual wielding 1h weapons,like the Sword of Swiftness.

Also,it has to be considered that equipping 2 items means spending gems 2 times.
In the case of the Sword of Sw,this means that its more expensive most of the time(2*10 W gems).

[Mardagg]

For the wraith sword I have the following suggestions:
- raise its basic stats the same amount that most two handed weapons should be raised.
- Give it either a secondary effect of area fear, or a secondary effect of weakness. Or does the current life draining ability already count as a secondary effect?

we should discuss before,if we want the wraith sword cheaper than 25 D Gems.
Because,if it stays at that price, we would need a higher boost to its stats.

Personally,i would prefer to see it available at Death3,for 15 gems.

Keep in mind,that ,modwise, making it D2,D3 or D4, would resemble gem costs of 10,15 and 25 death gems.

[Sombre]

I think you could justify added def on some two handed weapons. Two handed swords for instance are pretty good defensively because of the way they can be gripped and used to parry. But something like a pike shouldn't add to def because in dom3 def is the ability to dodge and evade (see falling frost, trample, earthquake) rather than hold the enemy back.

I think the wraithsword would be better at 15D at D3. At 25D it has to be very powerful before you'd consider forging it. Something that would allow you to deal large amounts of damage to enemy thugs, or make you significantly harder to hit/damage.

[Mardagg]

What about underused magical spears having the #charge tag? This has already been modded in before and allows for some nice tricks with high AP thugs. Consider the spear of sharpness - currently never built over the sword of sharpness. But if it had charge,..?

I like that.

The #flail tag and the #nostr tag could also see more use.
Imagine a 2h weapon(implemantator axe?) doing like 26 damage,but with #nostr ,so that strength isnt added.Might be useful for low str thugs.
Regarding #flail,that +2att vs shield could be nice little boost for some 2h weapons.
But thats not all,since shield hits are ignored with flails,at least thats what the manual says.
Thats a pretty powerful tool vs 1h weapon+shield builds.

[rdonj]

Agreed with sombre on all counts. Most of the other two handed weapons are explicitly large and unwieldy, but most of the two handed swords could use a boost to defense. I don't know about some of those artifacts though, for example the stone sword already has 7!

Imagine a 2h weapon(implemantator axe?) doing like 26 damage,but with #nostr ,so that strength isnt added.Might be useful for low str thugs.


Sounds kind of like the gate cleaver's younger and wimpier cousin.

[Mardagg]

Sounds kind of like the gate cleaver's younger and wimpier cousin.

Yeah,it was just the basic idea.Quite some fine tunining would still be needed.
But,lets say we make it at least 30 damage nostr,you then get the fear and the pillage bonus in addition.
Now if you do some slight alterings for the Att/def (thats the weak spot of the gate cleaver btw) it could get its niche/fun uses i would think.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I agree with Mardagg's latest suggestions. Using the noStr tag could create some interesting weapons.

For another idea, what if we made the fire bola fill a misc slot instead of a weapon slot.

[Sombre]

I think fire bola on misc is a pretty interesting idea. I don't know if that would make it more usable, but it does make sense. Though then you could get a guy firing a bow and throwing fire bolas on the same turn, which would be slightly odd.

Using nostr on some weapons to make them a bit different seems reasonable. I also think there's room for more weapons to have the effect which creates soulless from stuff it kills - it isn't very powerful but it's pretty cool. Imagine if all baneblade weapons did that, for instance.

[Squirrelloid]

I'd support no-str for some weapons, but not an axe. Using an axe is all about strength - i can't imagine how you'd use one without strength mattering.

nostr would be good for some swords though (probably one-handed...).

[Mardagg]

I agree with you in general,squirr,but on the implementator axe it seems fitting.
imagine a huge magic axe(maybe possessed by some kind of evil demon), doing all the combat damage and pillaging independent of its owner and as such causing fear in the hearts of all people:)

[Squirrelloid]

If you could get it to auto-pillage i could see a use for it. Pretty sure that isn't possible.

(I would totally pillage if there was a move-and-pillage action).

[Sir_Dr_D]

What are your comments one the below revised stats, of the weapons I earlier listed. Anything in parthesis is how much I increased a stat by. Mostly I made the damage for two-handed swords double that of the single handed version. The defense was made 3 higher then the single handed verion, and the attack is 2 higher.

Spears, as Sombre pointed out, should not increase defense in dominions. They should not do as much damage as swords either. So what I did is made them into high acurracy weapons, and gave them the bonus damage on first strike ability.

*********************
Single Handed Sword of Sharpness:
Damage - 8
Attack - 1
Defense - 2
Length - 2

Two handed sword of sharpness:
Damage - 16 (+4 from the orginal stat)
Attack - 3 (+1)
Defense - 5 (+2)
Length - 3
******************************

1 handed bane blade:
Damage - 6
Attack - 1
Defense - 2
Length - 2

2 handed bane blade:
Damage - 12 (+3)
Attack - 3 (+1)
Defense - 5 (+2)
Length - 3

******************************
Enchanted spear:
Damage - 7 (With bonus damage on first strike)
Attack - 3
Defense - 2
Length - 4


Enchanted pike:
Damage - 13 (+3) (With bonus damage on first strike)
Attack - 6 (+3)
Defense - 1
Length - 6

[Jarkko]

I don't like the two handers getting too high Defense bonuses. They already are longer and thus will be able to repel, and they are not IMO so "agile" that it would warrant an increas on Defence stats. I mean, you are not supposed to be as good defending with a two-hander as you are with a one-hander + shield, right?

I'd like to suggest letting the Defense numbers be as is, just fix the the damage and attack values (and the charge bonuses for spear type weapons, I like that idea).

[Sir_Dr_D]

There was some arguments earlier on giving the two handed swords higher defense, so I put it in. It is to make up for the fact that repel is not all that good. It simulates swords being made for parrying, and it being harder to get close to a person with a 2 handed weapon. The defense is still not nearly as good as what you would get with a shield, plus you don't get the extra benefits that you would get from the extra sheild slot.

But You make a good argument. We will see what other people say.

[Tollund]

I don't like the two handers getting too high Defense bonuses. They already are longer and thus will be able to repel, and they are not IMO so "agile" that it would warrant an increas on Defence stats. I mean, you are not supposed to be as good defending with a two-hander as you are with a one-hander + shield, right?

Well, the shields do tend to have extra effects that are the source of most of their actual defensive power. The air shields don't, the lead shield is the only one that's purely earth that provides an extra effect, and all of the other shields provide secondary effects that are arguably more powerful than the extra protection and parry they provide. Luck, vines, eye loss, lightning damage, fire shield or awe, etc. A two-handed weapon has to offer something useful in order to be as good as those effects.

[Sir_Dr_D]

In comparing the defense values you would get with the stats I gave , to thsoe of a shield, I think Jarkko may right. You would get almost the same defense value with a shield, that you would with a two handed weapon. I think that at most the defense should be raised by 1 instead of 2, if at all. Note that those weapons I listed are all const-0. So they should only be compared to const-0 single handed weapon and shield combos.

[Mardagg]

For a start, I like your changes.
Some general thoughts:

A problem with the 2handed Bane Blade weapon is,that its used by Bane`s and Bane Lords.

Also,its important to consider the constr level and the gem cost,especially when altering level 0,5 gem weapons.

Personally i would prefer to agree on the exact changes for the Wraith Sword first.Then we would have a nice and more expensive weapon to be compared to for balancing reasons.

Wraith Sword:

15 Dgems,Path 3D( 25Dgems,4D before)
Construction Level: 6

Damage- 16 (+7)
Attack- 4 (+2)
Defense- 5 (+2)
Length- 3

Partial Life Drain

overpowered?

@Jarkko

I thought the same about the defense bonis before,but Sombre had a good point about that.
I now think,some increase in def for the 2h swords,only the swords,are ok. Especially for the Wraith Sword,i think its thematic anyhow.

[militarist]

About 2H swords.... I don't really think that doubling damage of the same 1H sword is a good idea. In such case 1H will do MUCH MORE damage on more unit than 2 hits by 1H swords because of game mechannics. And it will greatly change the game. SCs, who bet on protection will be much easier to fight against. I agree though that 2H weapong should be improved, I almost never use it now.

When we forge a weapon agains PD, we do AoEs.
The question is, when we will use 2H weapon?
It's obvious that mostly against SCs and nations with heavy protected units (if he will be lucky to get to them).

[Squirrelloid]

I don't like the two handers getting too high Defense bonuses. They already are longer and thus will be able to repel, and they are not IMO so "agile" that it would warrant an increas on Defence stats. I mean, you are not supposed to be as good defending with a two-hander as you are with a one-hander + shield, right?

I'd like to suggest letting the Defense numbers be as is, just fix the the damage and attack values (and the charge bonuses for spear type weapons, I like that idea).

Which context? In a duel or in line formation?

In line (ie, as a unit): I will note the swiss pikemen were the premier military unit for over a century following the introduction of the pike. So certain were they of their defensive advantages they didn't even wear greaves. Pikes certainly gave tremendous defensive advantage, and the poor excuse that is repel doesn't even begin to account for this.

Duel: A 2h sword is arguably superior to a 1h sword in a duel on the defensive. The 2h Sword is more maneuverable because it has 2 hands providing impetus, and capable of changing direction more rapidly. Especially as a well-made 2 handed blade didn't weigh anywhere near double the weight of a 1h sword. (Unless you want to talk about stuff like rapiers - but rapiers are rather past the tech levels involved, and useless against heavier armors). Parrying would have been a more effective and advantageous counter in a duel than blocking with a shield - in a parry you retain control over directionality (can direct your opponent's blade) and you don't give up line of sight to his weapon. Obviously, I'm assuming the person holding the weapon understands how to use it.

[Jarkko]

Dunno, two handed weapons should definitively IMO not have higer Defense value than the basic Short Sword. FWIW in a fantasy game, short swords were historical used exactly because they were good *defensive* weapons, while longer swords were better offensively put poor of defense (because even continents move faster...). With the suggestions above the whole historical (again, for what it is worth in a fantasy game) truth get turned upside down, and that feels very very odd.

[Jarkko]

Squirrel, assuming equal skill, the one wielding the more agile weapon wins. Which is why rapiers were the duellists weapon of choice.

Pikes were introduced as a defensive weapon against cavalry charge. In melee with sword wielders the pikemen always were at a disadvantage. When bayonets were invented and attached to guns, the pikemen disappeared fast, as they were simply no match for the bayonet charging infantry.

[militarist]

One more difference between 2H and 1H - 2H has more reasons to be AP and AoE. Ideally, if 1H weapon could never be AoE at all. If we imagine AoE short sword, which does AoE by fire for example, it should be easy to damage yourself. On the contrary, its easy to imagine a big guy with a huge sword, which looks like AoE machine.

Also, there can be different aims of equipping your SC. And can giving him 2H, you take 2 slots from him. And that's painful, getting to account that for SC (which are frequently big and expansive, and some gems also could be invested) ,good shield can be MORE IMPORTANT than weapon, especially for units with no built-in shield. So, it 2H has either add some def to compensate it, or really should worth some strategy, which would make it really competitive against fire band+good shield.

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrel, assuming equal skill, the one wielding the more agile weapon wins. Which is why rapiers were the duellists weapon of choice.

Pikes were introduced as a defensive weapon against cavalry charge. In melee with sword wielders the pikemen always were at a disadvantage. When bayonets were invented and attached to guns, the pikemen disappeared fast, as they were simply no match for the bayonet charging infantry.

A rapier was an excellent weapon because (1) it was *long* and agile, so didn't give up reach advantage, (2) heavy armor was no longer worn, especially not for duels, during the rapiers time of predominance. So the rapier didn't have to deal with armor penetration.

A hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword has a substantial reach advantage over, say, a short sword, and given two equally skilled swordsmen i'd expect the bastard sword to win. Its also about the same weight per hand used. If the short sword user also adopts a shield, he's taking a weight disadvantage and a line of sight disadvantage. (The bastard sword, because 2 hands provide 2 possible fulcra, is also more unpredictable in where it strikes). (Edit: a bastard sword is pretty agile when used well. Think of a katana - certainly depicted as an elegant weapon - and a bastard sword is the same weight and approximate size).

You are almost totally wrong on the pike.

Pikes were advantageous against cavalry, sure, but the swiss pikemen were the dominant military force for a century because they outperformed all other heavy infantry as well. No other weapon system compared to them until the introduction of mass gun formations.

At that point the pike became a cavalry defense system for gunners, because there was no such thing as dedicated melee assault troops anymore. Such a weapon system was useless because it was insufficiently fast to close under fire.

The pike was retired with the bayonet, not because the bayonet was better in melee, but because the bayonet was *sufficient* as an anti-cavalry charge weapon since cavalry was now using sabres instead of lances, and using bayonets let every soldier carry a firearm, thus increasing firepower without needing to increase manpower. Pikes would have massacred a bayonet charge, but withered under rifle fire.

[Jarkko]

Squirrel, a short sword would always be used with a shield. There is absolutely no way a man wielding a two hander would ever win a duel against a shield using soldier.

You are also exactly wrong on Pikemen :) The bane of pikemen were the rodeleros, the sword and shield wielding infantry. Please get your facts right :)

[Sombre]

Well pikes certainly didn't rise to dominance as an anti cavalry tactic. They were superb against infantry too, you only have to look at history.

This is a pretty major diversion from the point of the thread though. Pikes under cbm have decent att bonus and dmg, which actually does make them pretty good anti cav weapons, which is nice. I think the magic pike should be high att and high damage, really. I can't see what else could be done with it.

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrel, a short sword would always be used with a shield. There is absolutely no way a man wielding a two hander would ever win a duel against a shield using soldier.

...

Based on what? The shield-using soldier carries more weight and has worse line of sight. Shields are useful in a line, but in a duel they're mostly useless.

You are also exactly wrong on Pikemen :) The bane of pikemen were the rodeleros, the sword and shield wielding infantry. Please get your facts right :)

Um, no. Please read: Archer Jones. The Art of Warfare in the Western World. More citations available upon request.

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

Sombre: with apologies, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Sir_Dr_D]

For a start, I like your changes.
Some general thoughts:

A problem with the 2handed Bane Blade weapon is,that its used by Bane`s and Bane Lords.

Also,its important to consider the constr level and the gem cost,especially when altering level 0,5 gem weapons.

Personally i would prefer to agree on the exact changes for the Wraith Sword first.Then we would have a nice and more expensive weapon to be compared to for balancing reasons.

Wraith Sword:

15 Dgems,Path 3D( 25Dgems,4D before)
Construction Level: 6

Damage- 16 (+7)
Attack- 4 (+2)
Defense- 5 (+2)
Length- 3

Partial Life Drain

overpowered?


- We can always decouple the 'weapon' used by the bane lords, with the bane weapon that we can construct. They can have different stats.

- What I am trying to do is raise the stats of the two handed weapon so that they are just as valueable as the one handed weapons. What should be asked is how the new statted two handed sword of sharpness compares with a single handed sword of sharpness used in combo with one of the level 0 shields. If with these new stats, people would always use the two handed version, then these stats are too powerfull. If people still almost always use the sword shield combo, even at construction level 0, then these new stats cannot be overpowered.

- I like your stats for the wraith sword. It seems about right.

[Jarkko]

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...
The rodeleros were utilised as anti pikemen units from early 16 century, they were used already in the Italian wars which was the golden age of swiss pikes. Later on pikemen, rodeleros and musketeers were combined to the spansih tercio.

Another question is of course why the romans, the archetype of short sword and shield troops, was able to beat the hellenistic spear and pike armies, as well all the barbarian invasions (the barbarians who used very mixed weapons, but are depicted by roman documents on many occasions to have used big two hander axes, swords and spears).

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive. By making a twohander weapon as good as a one-hander+shield, something is going terribly wrong. Buff the attack and damage yes (the swiss pikes for example were very strong against other infantry when they attacked, but on defense against the rodeleros they were in serious trouble), but it doesn't hurt to have *some* realism in a fantasy game; two-handed weapons suck for defense, and that would be good to be given a thought :)

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

[chrispedersen]

Hey sombre.. in defense for some of the new people it takes a lot more than 5 minutes to really get a handle on modding capability.

And there are probably better ways to get them interested - but as far as I'm concerned you're one of the best there are... to bad we can't have modding classes.

I always wanted to make a "light lance" that cast solar brilliance and had the #charge tag.
Can't do it. Wish there were easier ways to add spells to weapons, or tages to units.

[Mardagg]

- We can always decouple the 'weapon' used by the bane lords, with the bane weapon that we can construct. They can have different stats.


yes.
But i dont think thats a good thing to do.
Seems not thematic for a low level item.
I would prefer to slightly tone your ideas down there.Otherwise the already pretty cheap and good banes could be too useful as suicide thugs.
2h Bane Blade
damage: 11(+2)
att: 3(+1)
def:3(+0)

What do you think?
Generally,the decay effect,not bad for early game/Assassins, should be the main reason to build it anyways and is the problem here regarding 1h vs 2h regardless of the changes that are done.
Another idea could be,stats staying the same,but giving it the life after death tag,sombres idea here.Not too useful,but funny.


- What I am trying to do is raise the stats of the two handed weapon so that they are just as valueable as the one handed weapons. What should be asked is how the new statted two handed sword of sharpness compares with a single handed sword of sharpness used in combo with one of the level 0 shields. If with these new stats, people would always use the two handed version, then these stats are too powerfull. If people still almost always use the sword shield combo, even at construction level 0, then these new stats cannot be overpowered.



Yes, and i completely agree with the pike.
Astral is very precious in CBM anyways,so making the pike a better choice for early game is nice ,imo.
But,for the matter of the sword of sharpness...its like someonelse mentioned: low level shields dont offer much.
And 1h weapon + shield is 10 gems,whereas 2h is 5 gems.
Early game,Dwarfen hammers are also seen less frequent,so that difference isnt neglectable imo.

I would prefer to see here :
2h sword of sharpness
damage:14(+2)
Att:3(+1)
def:4(+1)

[Mardagg]

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

Ah,on topic again:)
Yeah,thats the increase i am the most unsure about,too.
Thematically,though,i can justify it:
The Wraith sword is giving its wielder partial etherealness;)

Thats why i think,the Wraith Sword should offer pretty good Def compared to other 2h swords.
In addition,we got the Hell Sword already,for offense capability.

[chrispedersen]

Hmmm.

Interesting points all around. One thing perhaps I could contribute to the discussion - it would take fractionally more material, more magic to make a two hand weapon than one. Perhaps it makes more sense that the bigger effects culd be shifted to 2 handed weapons.

I realize its a bit unsettling, and that it would be a huge change.

But can the brands be made 2handed?

So a fire sword - one handed.. a fire brand.. two handed.
a dustdagger one handed.. a shadow brand two handed..

This would change the nature of thugs, and change the balance of the game a lot ..

[Sombre]

Hey sombre.. in defense for some of the new people it takes a lot more than 5 minutes to really get a handle on modding capability.

Of weapon and item modding? I don't think so. Maybe to fully realise what you can do with all the existing weapons listed in edi's DB and clever tricks with secondaryeffects etc, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about basic limitations. Understanding that weapons and items aren't the same thing.


If you changed the description of the wraithsword to say it wreathes the user in shadows or whatever, you could certainly justify extra def. Depends what you want the wraith sword to be - to me it clearly isn't suited to being an anti SC weapon, since its defining characteristic is partial lifedrain, which is basically useful against chaff. Does added def make it better as a chaff harvester? High enough def would. It would all around boost it of course.

I kinda like the idea of the wraithsword getting 2 attacks personally, making the most of the partial lifedrain.

[vfb]

I think we need to talk about longbows here too. Specifically: AP? Or not?

[Squirrelloid]

Jarkko, I have a reproduction of a 16th century german dueling manual that describes the use of a 2-handed sword, probably a bastard sword, in a duel. I reject your notion that 2-handed weapons weren't used for duels.

The rodeleros were used when pikemen were already tied up with other pikemen, and thus unable to employ their pikes (eg, Battle of Ravenna 1512). They also seem to have been acceptable weapons against the Aztecs - of course, just about anything would have been. When facing an unengaged pike block they lost horribly, such as the Battle of Seminara (1495). All told, rodeleros lasted all of maybe 40 years, mostly against the Aztecs, before their use was discontinued. They seem to have decided one battle that involved pikes. Hardly the nemesis of pike formations.

[Mardagg]

I kinda like the idea of the wraithsword getting 2 attacks personally, making the most of the partial lifedrain.

hmmm.
Very problematic with Quickness.
getting 2 times partial lifedrain is one thing...but 4?

25 dgems,not touching the stats and 2 attacks could be ok...maybe.

Maybe giving the Hell sword 2 attacks?
You gotta tone the stats down a bit though,for this to work.

[Sombre]

It would certainly have a lot more potential to do crazy stuff with 2 attacks, but that sounds pretty good to me. The weaknesses would be the same - no shield, not great weapon stats, expensive.

[Mardagg]

To me,that sounds more like a (great) idea for an unique item.
Imagine what you can do with this if you got a 4handed chassis...

Will be interesting what others think about that.

[Tolkien]

Jarkko: I won't address the Pikemen vs. Rodeleros argument (Squirrelloid addresses that very well), but your conclusion in regards to Roman Legions vs. Grecian/Macedonian Phalanxes is fairly erroneous.

The triumph of Roman Legions over Grecian/Macedonian Phalanxes had very little to do with their swords being far superior to pikes. The phalanx, by design, is a tactically inflexible formation: a massed, interlocking shield wall, the phalanx was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: shock. In favorable terrain, a phalanx charge would put dozens of spear-tips on an opposing enemy soldier, and, with the right momentum, could easily sweep away the stoutest of enemies. This is the lesson of the Greco-Persian wars, and the conquest of Alexander the Great: that is, never, ever try to stand in the way of a fully formed, charging phalanx. Marathon, certainly, provides evidence of such, as well as countless battles involving the phalanx during it's heyday. The phalanx was also superior to other infantry (and cavalry) in a frontal clash, and can perform spectacularly on the defense. Thermopylae gives some indication of that.

The flaw, however, of the phalanx is not in it's ability to decimate opponents in a frontal assault (that is proven well enough), but in it's tactical inflexibility. Phalanxes are by their very nature inflexible, and incredibly difficult to maneuver. If attacked on the flank, a phalanx would be unable to respond, as turning a massive shield-wall-line on a dime would mean those on the very end would have to run miles. This is, of course, the lesson of Cannae (this was back when the Romans still used the Grecian phalanx system): with insufficient cavalry to defend the flanks, and the retreat of the Carthaginian center to string the battle-lines into an inward crescent, the phalanx loses it's linear cohesion, and is quickly surrounded and chopped to pieces.

Another fatal weakness of the phalanx was it's poor response to terrain. The phalanx, also by nature, requires good terrain to for it's full potential to shine. Nothing in the ancient (and pre-gunpowder) era was likely to resist a fully formed phalanx charging on even terrain with a slightly downhill slope: the frontal momentum would shatter the army. However, when terrain becomes uneven, hilly, swampy, whatever, the phalanx loses it's unit cohesion, and is unable to perform as promised.

So there we have the pros and the cons of the phalanx formation:
Pros:
Incredibly devastating shock factor, outstanding defensive capabilities, and well-nigh invincible frontal momentum
Cons:
Tactically inflexible/requires favorable terrain

Once you view a phalanx in such a light, everything else about the general composition of a Hellenistic army makes perfect sense. Light cavalry, peltasts (and other skirmishers), etc, were all designed to compensate for the phalanx's poor flexibility and vulnerability to flanking, and were the principle units used in terrain unsuitable for phalanxes, whereas other auxiliaries, such as elephants, etc., were there to bolster it's frontal shock in terrain where the phalanx was perfectly usable. The end result was a devastating army with good maneuverability and flexibility.

The Roman Legion system evolved separately from the Macedonian phalanx system (see above): the birth of the Roman Republic, set in hilly Italy, lacked access to sufficient auxiliaries to compensate for it during it's wars, the legion system began to evolve in a different direction. Thus, the manipular legion is born, and the phalanx abandoned all together, adopted from the Samnites in the Second Samnite Wars (after a series of Roman military disasters in the hills). The manipular legions were phalanxes-in-transition (it doesn't reach the cohortal legion system, with a pure emphasis on sword, shield, and javelin, but close), so to speak: the legionnaire were given javelins, the long spears were dramatically shortened, and the sword (a phalangite usually did carry a sword, although it was almost never used, and was fairly pitiful) was emphasized instead, along with the shield. In addition, smaller units were formed to give the legion far superior flexibility, and instead of massing along a giant shield wall, the legionnaires were spaced out. This gave the legion far superior performance then the phalanx in more difficult terrain, and is key to many of the Roman victories against the phalanx. The Battle of Pydna, for example (the only instance where a manipular legion defeats a Macedonian phalanx in a frontal clash) was won when the legion retreated over uneven ground, causing the phalanx to fall apart, and, thus, made it possible to halt their momentum and get up close. Originally, they attempted to hack off the spear-tips or dodge behind the spear wall, with little success. In addition, the Roman flanks were triumphant and were able to roll up around the sides of the phalanx, who promptly dropped their spears and resorted to sword/shield combat with the legionnaires (which ended horribly, owing to the Romans' larger and heavier shields and longer swords). The Battle of Cynoscephalae is another example of flexibility in action. Here, despite hilly, uneven ground, the Macedonians were able to form a phalanx and charge downhill, pushing the legions back on the Macedonian right. On the left, however, the Romans sent elephants crashing into the Macedonians (who were still in marching order and were unable to form a phalanx in time), which allowed them to roll up the Macedonian flank.

There are a number of other battles out there, which I can't quite remember the names of, but in all of them, Roman victories were not achieved by pitting the legion head-on against the phalanx, but by flanking maneuvers and superior use of terrain to maximize the potential of the legions and to minimize phalanx cohesion.

In short: the legion vs. phalanx argument is irrelevant (and beaten to death), as it really isn't about pike vs. sword/shield, at all. Really, it was largepikeshieldwallaverageshieldsandpitifulswords vs. decentspearsjavelinslargeshieldsandgoodswords.

Sorry, I felt the need to write a wall-o-text.

EDIT: To add to the pike vs. sword debate:

It really depends. In units, pikes are the way to go. Pike formations are all about putting as many spear-points on a single enemy soldier as possible, preventing them from touching you, and skewering them as you move forward. In single combat, swords are far more useful, as a pike is unwieldy and can easily be avoided (if there's only one). Not sure how that's going to pan out in game, but :shrugs:

What about halberds? :v:

[rdonj]

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive.

This is not really true. A quick two handed weapon (mainly 2 handed swords and staves) is very effective at defense, due due to the reach advantage, surface area suitable to parrying, and the fact that they can actually be much faster than a one handed weapon, believe it or not. A decent sized shield IS superior, particularly if you have to fight in a line or absorb arrow fire, but a dueler with a 2-hand can be plenty agile and difficult to strike. Axes and maces, and especially flails are less suitable as defensive weapons imo, due to being less well balanced, heavier in general, and having less suitable surface area for parrying. A one handed weapon, in contrast, being shorter, lighter, slower, and carrying less force behind them are much worse for parrying and cover a smaller percentage of the body from attack, which is where the shield comes in.

So my personal take would be that two handed swords (and possibly staves) should in general have higher defense values than they currently have and make up a bit for the lack of having a shield. On the other hand, I do agree with you that they should not be as good defensively as a shield is. But considering just a plain old blacksteel tower shield, it would take a sword with a minimum of 12 defense on it to even approach the usefulness of it as a defensive weapon, not to mention a vine or gleaming gold shield.

I don't necessarily agree that the 2-hand needs to be as good as a 1-hand and shield (which would be very difficult considering all the nice effects some shields get), but it should definitely be an acceptable alternative for the cost. Currently I don't think that's the case.

[PyroStock]

Keep in mind forging shield+sword takes 2 mages (or turns), which means if I forge a 2-handed I can use the other mage to help reach a next research level or forge a another 2-handed weapon or cast a ritual or patrol or... etc.

In my current game, I wouldn't have the magic diversity to forge many of the good shields (10D5F, 10E5F, 5A5E, 5F5E, 10S5B) if it weren't for my pretender so there is a price to pay for that good sword/shield combo. A 2-handed sword that only requires 1 path shouldn't be as good as the good sword/shield combos.

I also think it's better to err on the side of caution, particularly as death magic is already powerful.

[Squirrelloid]

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak. In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. Given that, if there are weak death forgings, that's just a guarantee that no one will ever forge them. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker.

Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc... The only thing death being strong argues for is that death boosters need to be expensive or inconvenient (and they are - one takes 2 hands, ie no hammer use at the same time, and the other is 25d), since those are generally necessary forgings for accessing the good stuff, not optional forgings.

[vfb]

Looks like:

lantern shield: which can provide pretty cool decoy targets,
charcoal shield: good versus Markata in melee, what more could you ask?
Gleaming gold: because you ran out of N gems, and it's only 6, and what else is F for,
Accursed: when you really don't want people to hit you.

[rdonj]

You missed his scutata volturnus.

[Micah]

Could be a shield of valor.

[Squirrelloid]

ahem, when i said 2.5 fewer liches i meant 1 fewer lich / 2.5 sets of 12d. lol

[rdonj]

True, my bad.

[PyroStock]

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker. Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc...

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword). And conveniently, you apparently see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

[Tollund]

The wraith sword might as well be removed entirely with it's current price and stats. A standard of the damned costs just as much, does more damage to anything that has good defenses and gives a fear aura.

[Squirrelloid]

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

The next best shield is arguably Eye Shield.

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

Where's the strawman? Strawmen reach a faulty conclusion because they depend on a mis-characterization. I made a factual claim: death gems being already useful is no reason for another use to be worse. And the logical conclusion: worse uses won't see play. Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses. Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played. This isn't a strawman, its basic economics.

(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game.

Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you. It doesn't change the factual nature of my statements.

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword).

Now who's using strawman arguments?

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed. Possibly needs to be made a little cheaper. It certainly sees occasional use at present (unlike wraithsword), and has niche uses (its one of the few ways to move a Sphinx, for example), so there are times where its situational value is high enough to warrant spending d gems on it.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.


And conveniently, you apparently don't see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

Early game its an issue, but very few nations are equipping piles of thugs/SCs in the early game (and those nations generally really want shields - ie, vanheim, eriu, etc...).


Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

[Micah]

"Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?"

This is not true. Shield utility is highly situational. Char shield is better if you're running into skel spam or air magic summons (especially these, with 0 prot and 1 HP), since you need them dead, not entangled, to get to the mages at the back. Awe is better to stop damage from lance charges since the vine shield doesn't work until after you get hit. Higher parry shields will stop magic bows or massed crossbows from owning your face. The better damage soak and parry values on many of the larger shields also help your defense out more than the vine shield.

Oh, and there's certainly a counter to vine shields, I believe it's MR based on my testing with some eriu thugs. They have crap strength but don't get tangled often.

[Zeldor]

It'd be fun to have sailing items for commanders only :)

[PyroStock]

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

:rolleyes:Fine be predictable and I'm sure your opponents won't mind either. Micah covered many other points well enough.

Where's the strawman?

You said, "Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak" in response to my post. No one ever made "an argument for death forgings to be weak," so there was no reason to mention that. Regardless, I accept your revision of, "no death forge should be weak" because it won't see play as that doesn't imply anyone is making "an argument for death forgings to be weak."

Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses.

Wrong. Even when CBM first started the vanilla 10D Tartarian was one of the best use for death gems (especially since it didn't even have shattered soul yet). CBM didn't change everything and base it off the overpowered vanilla 10D Tartarian (that's ridiculous)... instead it nerfed the Tartarian.

Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played.
(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I'm not objecting to a change for the wraithsword, however, another problem with applying your "best uses" theory to all items/spells is you're further widening the power gap (well chasm) between the weaker/stronger gems and making death heavy nations even stronger. Additionally, your deliberate neglect of the research tree by comparing Conj9 Tartarians to a Cons6 item makes them not a valid comparison and makes your "value" to the death gem wildly inappropriate for balance.

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game. Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you.

I can agree more with the above because there's a big difference between "it needs to be improved because it sees no play" and some of your other outrageous statements.

Now who's using strawman arguments?

You don't like the taste of your own medicine? Good.

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed.

I was being sarcastic.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.

It always keeps coming back to the 10n shields. If every 2-handed weapon (and eventually shield) gets compared to the 10n shields then perhaps it's your precious 10n shields that are too cheap/overpowered.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

It's 1 mage turn if you only make 1 shield every game regardless of the nation and game settings. Even IF one's imagination for the mages is limited to research then the cumulative effect adds up and could mean hitting a research level sooner to turn the tide of battles or get a unique first. It's easy to ignore since it's not easy to witness.

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

And everyone sees those values differently, which you demonstrated quite well for me. As you yourself said spell/forge value can vary depending on the situation (the individual, the nation, game settings, game rules, etc). That further suggests it's better to be cautious so things remain more constant and fewer things become overpowered under different situations. The item can always be revisited again later. I would rather have CBM err on the side of "these 11 were changed, but still don't see play according to many players so perhaps we need to look at some again" rather than "well the last CBM version made the following 3 items/spells overpowered... while we try to correct those lets also make these other 11 more powerful to make sure they get some use now."

[Amorphous]

No. It's also pointless, since you can just boost the imp axe and ignore the pillage bonus no-one cares about.
Very well, if it cannot be done, the aesthetics of it is rather moot.

Looking at the axe, it really does not seem that bad in itself - fear is a reasonably powerful effect. It seems to me that at least part of the problem is that the Horror Helmet is available at the same level of construction with path requirements that make it likely that anyone able and willing to craft the axe, could craft the helmet instead. Perhaps bumping the helmet up to construction 4 would help.



Now regarding the general situation of 2-handers vs 1-handers and shields, I want to reinforce that cost is important. Sure, you usually build a number of top SCs in each game where a couple of gems here or there does not make any big difference, but at least for thugs, the same gems do matter. If you make a 5-gem 2-hander just as good as the combination of a 5-gem 1-hander and a 10-gem shield, the 2-hander is going to be built in the vast majority of cases.

Also it seems to me that a good number of the 2-handers discussed here are decidedly low-level. And in the early game, a mage turn is a lot more expensive than it is later, relatively speaking. And the number of gems needed is even more critical.

In the end, a construction 4 item should probably see use more often in the game once that level of construction is researched.

If you compare a 5-gem level 0 item to a combination of a 5-gem level level 0 item and a 10 gem level 4 item, the latter should be better in most situations.


Off topic:
If you want to know what's actually possible rather than having to ask me or assume anything, I suggest looking in the mod manual. In fact no-one should be allowed to post in this thread unless they actually understand what can be done to weapons/items via mod commands.
I am sorry if my question rubbed you the wrong way; that was not my intention.

If you do not think relevant or want to answer one of my questions, just ignore it. I am not quite so self-centred that I regard you or anyone as having a duty to answer a question just because I ask it.

It also seems like my wording threw you off and you took my question a bit too literally. In my defence I will say that it never entered my mind that anyone would interpret my words so narrowly as to think I meant using the newweapon-command and adding the ability directly to the structure (hope that was clear enough).

Admittedly I have done very little modding and most of what I have done has concerned monsters, but all the more reason to ask when it comes to magic items, in my opinion. Quite a few things are not exhaustively covered in the modding manual and among them is what items hide at construction 12. For all I know, there could be a number of nifty single-ability items there that could be used on occasions such as this. From your response, though, I gather that this is not the case.

Again, I am sorry if I offended you with my question.

[Sombre]

Looking at the axe, it really does not seem that bad in itself - fear is a reasonably powerful effect. It seems to me that at least part of the problem is that the Horror Helmet is available at the same level of construction with path requirements that make it likely that anyone able and willing to craft the axe, could craft the helmet instead. Perhaps bumping the helmet up to construction 4 would help.


Why would you nerf the situationally useful horror helmet? It isn't like it's overused and eclipsing balanced items. It's often useful as is, whereas the imp axe generally isn't, so boost the imp axe. Not rocket science.


I am sorry if my question rubbed you the wrong way

It didn't but your apologies don't read as sincere in the slightest anyway.

It also seems like my wording threw you off and you took my question a bit too literally. In my defence I will say that it never entered my mind that anyone would interpret my words so narrowly as to think I meant using the newweapon-command and adding the ability directly to the structure (hope that was clear enough).

If it never entered your mind, why are you assuming that's how I interpreted it? I just said it isn't possible. Which it isn't, with the caveat that anything is theoretically possible if you're willing to go to ridiculous lengths or accept a messy solution to do something basically pointless.

For instance you could turn Horror Helm, the item, into a replacement for imp axe which wouldn't have the pillage bonus, if you accepted that you'd be losing horror helm just to remove an attribute no-one cares about. Same situation with construction 12 items, if there was even one that just granted fear, it would be a less messy solution to the 'problem' (imp axe having pillage).

[Amorphous]

Why would you nerf the situationally useful horror helmet? It isn't like it's overused and eclipsing balanced items. It's often useful as is, whereas the imp axe generally isn't, so boost the imp axe. Not rocket science.
Because I still see the helmet as useful at construction 4 - I have used it reasonably often in games after having researched past construction 2. And if it were bumped to 4, I would see the axe as an early crafting option. Since there does not seem to be that much agreement about how to improve 2-handers, I think this might be an easy way of doing it.

I can see using the axe with e.g. trample-thugs in the event of such a change.



If it never entered your mind, why are you assuming that's how I interpreted it? I just said it isn't possible.
Some of your later posts led me to believe that you read it like that. If you did not, all the better.


For instance you could turn Horror Helm, the item, into a replacement for imp axe which wouldn't have the pillage bonus, if you accepted that you'd be losing horror helm just to remove an attribute no-one cares about. Same situation with construction 12 items, if there was even one that just granted fear, it would be a less messy solution to the 'problem' (imp axe having pillage).
Thanks, I thought so, but since I have not really tested it, I appreciate the confirmation.

[Sombre]

I think the imp axe would suck as much on a trampler as on anything else. In the rare cases that anyone would even make early trampling thugs they'd be better served with an additional shield.

As for horror helm being usable at construction 4 - so what? Countless items would still be usable at higher levels of construction. They'd just be worse. It doesn't mean anyone would build the dross items, they'd just save their gems or spend them on stuff other than forging. The imp axe is currently just a bad use of gems except in extreme niche scenarios.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I know it is not a good idea to change the cost and research level of commonly used items, because it confuses people. Most of the time I agree with this. But there is one item I think should get changed. It is so commonly used that it sometimes seems like thugs all might as well come with one misc slot, and automatically have luck. (That is a slight exageration, but it does seem like most builds need to have that lucky pendant.)

I think the lucky pendant should be research level 4 and cost 10 astral. If you make that change then there will be a lot more variety in what is used in the misc slots. There is a lot of interesting item, but they are rarely used because they are completely overshadowed by the lucky pendant. This modification could change the balance in the game, and a lot of people will likely be against this, but I think the change would be for the better.

[Tollund]

So who would use the lucky coin then?

[Sombre]

Watch as faithful and lucky coin soar in value!

[Sir_Dr_D]

Watch as faithful and lucky coin soar in value!

That would be one of the effects I would hope for.

[Fantomen]

I would rather make the amulet construction 6. So you'll have a midgame period when people needs to use faithful and lucky coin or skip luck. That would also make the choice of shield less obvious.

The reason is that I think increasing the gem cost would simply make the amulet useless.

Another option is to make the faithful and lucky coin cheaper.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I don't think making it cost 10 gems would make it useless. It just means you would only want to use it on your high value SC's, and not on every thug.

Making it only construction 6, without increasing the cost, would mean that once you reach construction 6 every single thug would have a lucky pendant again. I would like to see more varied use in misc slots.

[Squirrelloid]

I rarely see, say, Eriu/TNN thugs with lucky pendants. They simply don't need it, and as Eriu doesn't have piles of astral lying around generally they'd rather put it to more productive uses (starting with the AMA which is absolutely essential).

Most thugs rarely have full slots anyway, because its not cost effective if you're fielding large numbers of thugs. Cheap thugs with no more than 4 pieces of gear (weapon, shield, AMA, maybe one more piece) is the way to go.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Out of curiosity, what is the chasis used for these thugs?

[Squirrelloid]

Out of curiosity, what is the chasis used for these thugs?

Sidhe Lords are the really easy to mass thugs, since they're recruit anywhere. Ri (Cap, TNN) or Tuatha (Cap, Eriu) are also easily thugged and have slightly better stats and much better magic, but are much more valuable because of their limited availability. With an E8+ bless they're all thuggable with just frostbrand and vine shield. (+AMA by mid-game to make mindhunt sniping harder).

Similarly, Van/Helheim have plenty of thugs that don't need much gear. Firebrand + gold shield is the standard here, at least for Van.

[chrispedersen]

Speaking of the con12 items..

Any utility to lowering them? And/or changing them for more general use in game?

[Tollund]

I'd like to see more of some of them, since they have a lot of flavour.

[Sir_Dr_D]

what is meant by con12 items?

[rdonj]

Unique items the player can't forge, like the equipment of the sun, bogus' gear, robe of the sorceress....

[Bananadine]

Oh hi everybody I am not qualified to talk about the fine points of whether particular swords should be armor-negating but:

Vine shield is so good. I am tired of vine shields. Everybody uses vine shields against me! For some reason nobody uses eye shields against me. But it seems like they are super-good too. Vine shield vine shield vine shield! EVERYWHERE I TURN THERE IS A VINE SHIELD

I am not certain that these shields are overpowered (is anybody ever certain about such things) but I sure do feel like I'm cheating when I forge one